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

Wed Jul 24 00:19:46 UTC 2013

Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such detailed
scenarios.

What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.

As for your comment about "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", that is
not the case and that is crux of the issue: I was googling - on google, I
was not on Flickr - for pics of mosquitos sucking blood and was surprised
to see pictures of blatant (not art) oral sex. That in itself is not a
problem, the problem is that people (parents) have a idea that Flickr is
'safe'. I don't mind if it is not or they have opted not to be or reasons
of bottom line - but then this should be ade known on the site, just like
any other porn site.

And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.

Best regards,

Rui

On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>

-- 
_________________________
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
_______________