[Wikimedia-l] The soft underbelly of the WP: the sponsored private fiefdoms that thrive in the blind spots

Tue Jul 23 17:12:32 UTC 2013

Rui,

There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:

*Answer the First*

This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will change,
because editors like things just the way they are.

The system of pseudonymous contribution is a major driver of participation:
"Here is the number one Google link for [insert any topic under the sun].
You can change what it says, right now, and you don't even have to say who
you are. No real accountability; no way to trace it back to you if you're
smart. Just register a funny name, and click Edit."

Given the current initiatives with Wikidata and so forth

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedias-new-open-initiatives-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-8728357.html

this will not get better: as the stakes get higher, and Wikimedia comes to
dominate the world's information landscape even more, it will only get
worse.

Don't hope for change from the Wikimedia Foundation, because the Foundation
is unlikely to cut the roots of such a major driver of participation.

Don't hope for change from the community either, for the very same sort of
players you call out in your original post will prevent it.

The present system is far too convenient for all of them: all the people
who are happily grinding axes on Wikimedia sites will unite against you,
even as they are fighting each other tooth and nail on actual content.

Tell the public instead. Explain to them why the system's governance sucks,
and how it affects content.

*Answer the Second*
*
*
This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
"Coca Cola Germany" in the edit history. Transparent, and accountable.

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca-Cola&diff=94427890&oldid=94244180

In the English Wikipedia, however, any account named after a company is
automatically blocked, and the operator asked to register an account with a
funny name. This just drives this sort of editing underground, and removes
transparency.

*Answer the Third*
*
*
What did you expect? You cited no reliable source other than Flickr's own
website. Your edit was basically original research, and regardless of who
the editors are who reverted you, they were fully justified. Wikipedia 101:
find a secondary source. Here are some to start you off:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/course-flickr-has-porn-problem/40600/

http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hosts-hardcore-porn-and-sells-ads-against-it-advertisers-react-with-outrage-2011-7?op=1

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/flickr

If it still doesn't stick, drop me a line.

*Answer the Fourth*

Why are you complaining about Flickr? Flickr does a fairly good job of
showing nudity and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want
to view it, and ensuring that those who don't want to see it don't get to
see it. Complain about Wikipedia and Commons instead (the following links
are NSFW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=massage&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=40&redirs=0&profile=images&search=pliers

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=male+human&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bell+tolling&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=prince+albert&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=30&redirs=0&profile=images&search=hood

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=black&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=asian&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=caucasian&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=furniture&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=bench&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=jumping+ball&fulltext=Search

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=driving&fulltext=Search

Etc.

Best,
Andreas

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
>
> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
> these issues.
>
> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
> know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by to
> add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that get
> reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership'
> syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they don't
> like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they 'own'
> certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are actually
> lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s).
>
> A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
> sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added a
> few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I admit
> the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history of
> the page.
>
> That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything
> negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was
> 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation 2
> months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add pro-Flickr
> edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of
> Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has
> practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr (there
> is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there is
> indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in a
> concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes
> suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a high-school
> student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are making
> rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a
> section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other
> (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number of
> Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a
> relaible source, apparently..
>
> This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the Flickr
> article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and
> most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad
> press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at
> whatever hour of day or night.
>
> The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project play
> into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist.
> Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will
> persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere.
> Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use
> them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for
> arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors involved
> or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as it
> develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
> driving away good editors.
>
> I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have come
> across this type of behaviour.
> And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind spots
> of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
> principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an age
> when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service of
> 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui Correia.
>
>
>
> --
> _________________________
> Rui Correia
> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant
> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant
>
> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186
> Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186
> _______________
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>