User talk:Betsythedevine/Archive 2006

Material from 2005 archived w:User_talk:Betsythedevine:_Archive_2005.

Removing accurate information from bios

Hi--I noticed that you removed the information that Frank Wilczek is "of Polish and Italian origin" from his bio. Looking at your recent contributions, I see that you also edited out the Polish origin of several other Wikipedia subjects because you're "Trying to use standard biographical format." IMO, accurate information about ethnic origins is something that other people might well find of interest in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see why "standard biographical format" should exclude that information, or why Polish origin in particular should be singled out for excision. I'm Frank Wilczek's wife, though I don't think that's relevant to my point here (and I'm of French and Irish origin, if you want even fuller disclosure). betsythedevine 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Betsy, First, it IS relevant that you are Frank's wife in a GOOD way :). Second, I meant NO disrespect to Frank's ethnicity and it SHOULD be included in the article, the only question is WHERE. I will go back and re edit and also leave a note on the talk page so we can discuss it there for ALL editors to chime in. I actually got started on my bio edits due to Mr. Edward Teller and his ethnicity. It seems that a LARGE number of biographies had Jewish-American added to the headers/first sentence and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) this seemed inappropriate UNLESS the person's "Jewishness" or "Polishness" or "whateverness" is what made them notable. It would seem that Frank's Noble Prize deserve's mention BEFORE his Polish descent wouldn't it? Anyways, again, I am NOT trying to "de-ethnicitize" (is that a word?) ANYBODY, just trying to make biographies more "standardized per Wiki guidelines (not rules set in stone). Ethnicity SHOULD be included in each article. I actually plan on working on Greek Americans and Italian Americans next :) If you look at the 1,000s of bios out there, there are many different styles, especially for less notable individuals. It seems that ethnicity should be mentioned under "early life" or family backgroung ect. Just for disclosure, I am of Polish-Jewish descent and my father is also an extremely respected physicist...NOT that it matters. Also please excuse my terrible spelling, I wish Wiki had a spell check, I really do have a higher education.. :) --Tom 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tom--You're right--moving the ethnicity further down in the bio is an improvement. I just didn't want it to disappear. IIRC, the history of its inclusion was that somebody mentioned his Polish roots and I added the Italian for completeness. So, thanks for making a good change. betsythedevine 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Betsy, any time. A happy Wiki ending...FOR NOW until somebody edits it , just kidding :). What does IIRC mean? "In regards to recent conversation or comment or??" I am sure once you tell me I'll be slapping my head saying "of course!" Have a pleasant day until we meet again. Also, I appreciate you posting your reply on both our pages, I just started to do that since SO MANY talk pages are impossible to follow the thread since most editors don't do this. Its like trying to figure out a mystery novel or something and always leaves me so curious but I don't bother to flip between the pages...Cheers! --Tom 17:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Schrödinger's Wiki: The Quantum Challenge of Media Attention" (Wikimania talk)

Abstract of talk

In quantum mechanics, you can't observe a phenomenon without affecting it. When Wikipedia makes headline news, inbound waves of new visitors challenge the project. I will describe examples of two different challenges.

First, the "Swiftboating" edit war (November/December, 2005) began when political bloggers linked to this article, criticizing its POV from both left and right. Within minutes, many new IP addresses were trying to edit the article, some expressing frustration with acts of vandalism. Second, Wikipedia's increasing use as a media source motivated anonymous edits by Congressional staffers, as investigated by WikiNews in January/February, 2006.

The "Swiftboating" war typifies what I would call a "vandal wave," set off by negative coverage of Wikipedia, a pointer to a specific article, and new-user frustration with editing tools in conditions of heavy use. The Congressional edits could be described as a "spin wave," where highly-motivated professional writers attempted to shift the spin of important articles.

In both cases, Wikipedia gets hit by what looks like a wave of negative contributors. I'll discuss some tools and metrics for each case, including ways to detect/recruit productive contributors. I hope the audience will also contribute new insights. betsythedevine 20:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For example: "Spin wave" events

• Paid contributor to blogs (and wikis?) Snip: "They hunt for people who want information on cellular service and offer well-written (and not necessarily true) commentary in the form of email and blog replies. The trick is to come over as a thrilled customer rather than a shill. This person works (indirectly) with the marketing arm of a large cellular provider as a contractor and has been averaging about $50 an hour."

Gathering info about Wikipedia/Wikinews response to the Congressional edits

I'll post my Wikimania talk's abstract here when I finish writing it (due tomorrow!) I just posted my talk's abstract, above. betsythedevine 21:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm left a note on several Wikinews talk pages asking some of the early-responders to tell me more about the discovery of, research concerning, and group response to anonymous edits being made to Wikipedia from a variety of government offices. For example: What was the event that brought it to your attention? Did you enlist collaborators, and if so, how? Did you come to any general conclusions about protecting Wikipedia from anonymous POV-pushers in the future? I'm giving a short talk at Wikimania about the Congressional edits, the "Swiftboating" edit war, and similar mass-arrivals of new edits. betsythedevine 18:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Bush's reply, from his own talk page

I first came across the Congressional edits in a Lowell Sun article on those done by Marty Meehan. Wikipedia had a list of edits by computers in the U.S. Senate, where I looked through all the contributions. I enlisted the help of Wayne Saewyc, whose Wikinews username is Amgine, through the #wikinews IRC channel. He found the edits from the office of Senator Feinstein and also called Senate offices before the Wikinews article was published.

I think most people with IP addresses that can be traced to a specific location are more cautious about editing articles relating to themselves, especially about removing valid content, because of the negative publicity that could occur. For political articles, I think it might be a good idea to sift through contributions from political IP addresses in October. The best thing to do, though, is for Wikipedians to simply add those articles to their watch lists. Daniel Bush 21:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Amgine onboard

Sure Betsythedevine, I'd be happy to help out with your Wikimania talk.

• What was the event that brought it to your attention?

  While I was aware of some elements of the discussion in November and December of 2005, the Meehan story made it of much greater interest generally. For the specific story which was later developed on Wikinews, Daniel Bush and TheKMan did the majority of the work while I served primarily a facilitator role initially, and then doing some of the legwork in compiling and sorting data, communicating with Senators and/or their offices.

• Did you enlist collaborators, and if so, how?

  Yes and no. Daniel Bush and others were working on this topic, and I successfully swayed them to build the investigation into a news article. I roped a number of people into volunteering efforts and thoughts to the project, including developing quick-and-dirty PHP scripts to automate some of the data checking, information on the inner workings of e-mail servers and protocols, and fact checking. Most of the networking among collaborators was initially done using IRC, telephones, and e-mail. As Daniel Bush was writing up the results of the work it became primarily a wiki and IRC project.

• Did you come to any general conclusions about protecting Wikipedia from anonymous POV-pushers in the future?

  Nothing new, unfortunately. The vast majority of edits from the Senate IPs were beneficial to the en.WP project, but wherever there is darkness there will be those who wish to take advantage of it. By throwing a sharp amount of light at this particular set of inappropriate edits we've hopefully minimized its ability to go by unnoticed. This does not make the problem go away; most likely the same groups are continuing in exactly the same behaviour, and are simply not using the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms owned IP addresses. Still, the more sunlight the better, in my experience. More people watching more articles, and bringing unpleasant behaviours into the public's eye, are possible responses to what we saw in this case.

This news event had two elements I see related to your Wikimania talk: the effect of anon IP contributors who think their actions on Wikipedia will not be detected, and the effect of news articles about Wikipedia/Wikinews bringing in a raft of new anon IP editors (sometimes beneficial, sometimes not.) Good luck with the talk; I hope I can attend! - Amgine 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Amgine! Once I get my abstract finished (it's due Sunday, June 4!) I'll post it here. betsythedevine 06:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Gathering info about Swiftboating edit war (November/December 2005)

Message left on User_talk:DJ_Clayworth: I see you were one of the most active editors working to repair the epidemic of vandalism to this article. Could you tell me more about how this situation came to your attention and any aspects of your response not clear from the edit history? Did you enlist collaborators, and if so, how? Did you come to any general conclusions about protecting Wikipedia from anonymous POV-pushers in the future? I'm giving a short talk at Wikimania about the Congressional edits, the "Swiftboating" edit war, and similar mass-arrivals of new edits. User_Talk:Betsythedevine betsythedevine 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Congressional edits

Sure, I'd be happy to talk about it, just give me a few days to gather my thoughts, I've been busy lately. --Saint-Paddy aka TUFKAAP 23:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania Meetup notes 20060710

Identifying groups we can send announcements to

Just local groups? No--but groups that are likely to have people who'll want to come.

• Local groups

Cambridge Chamber of Commerce: Deborah Finn/Eve Sullivan

Boston Non-profit mail list might have some members willing to volunteer

Harvard Summer School

Any other local conferences around that time?

Other local Meetups related to geeky or academic or idealistic topics

Libraries

The IgNobel people

• Non-local groups

Identifying possible sponsors

• Money

• Coupons/discounts/swag

Ask for discount coupons from tour bus companies that take off from Harvard Square

Ask for discount coupons from local restaurants, which might make them more eager to put our notices in their window...

Wilczek Bio

Hi Betsy, Pls can you check out the discussion board on the Wilczek page and lets us know if it is ok to use parts of the Nobel bio. Best regards, bunix 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dave Winer entry inaccuracies

re. "...created or was a lead contributor to several of the most popular XML dialects and APIs related to web publishing: RSS 2.0, XML-RPC, OPML, and the MetaWeblog API. "

This clause is inaccurate, and as the first sentence of the entry exaggerates Winer's technical contribution in a very misleading fashion. The following are verifiable facts:

• RSS 2.0 is 95+% identical to Userland's RSS 0.91, a near-copy of Netscape's RSS 0.91 which preceded it - lead developer Dan Libby (here's a reliable history: http://goatee.net/2003/rss-history.html)

• MetaWeblog API was created by Winer, but is essentially a minor extension of the Blogger API (b y Evan Williams), in Winer's own words: "The MetaWeblog API is designed to enhance the Blogger API"

• Dave was a lead contributor to XML-RPC, it is moderately popular in some circles, but also unpopular amongst many Web developers (progress on the Web, notably Fielding's 2000 thesis has led many to believe that the remote procedure style is inappropriate for the Web environment).

• OPML was created by Winer, it is also popular in certain circles, but unpopular amongst many XML developers due to its underspecification and disregard for known good practices (Google "opml sucks")

Hence I believe a more accurate version is:

"... contributed to several popular dialects and APIs related to web publishing"

-- Danny Ayers

---

Er, hello, anonymous person who considers Dave Winer's major contributions to many fields a matter of dispute. The description you prefer would seem more suited to someone who had very little impact on web publishing. Furthermore, I'm not sure that you improve the information content of Wikipedia by removing the actual names of the the stuff he worked on. The "reliable history" you reference doesn't look like what Wikipedia would consider a source of encyclopedia quality. I will look for some sources of such quality when I get a chance; maybe a direct quote from one of them will solve this problem while avoiding issues with the Wikipedia "No Original Research" policy. betsythedevine 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Betsy, I've acknowledged my signature - although in this particular situation I would have preferred the facts to speak for themselves. Dave Winer may have had a significant impact on web publishing (I believe he has, not all of it positive). But "having worked" on things is different to "created or was a lead contributor". The points I have described as facts are verifiable by looking at the relevant documents on the Web - you can find out by reading the historical documents. In particular, compare Netscape's RSS to Winer's; if you accept that "RSS the concept" predates this, look at Microsoft's even earlier CDF - the majority of the elements are the same. I called the linked document a reliable history because it points to many of the original sources. But let me put it another way - where are the facts to back up the statement you reverted to? (said Danny Ayers )

Hello, Danny. I'm moving this discussion of Dave Winer's bio from my talk page to the talk page of that article. It's a public page on Wikipedia, and I am only one of many editors trying to keep it in good shape. Since nobody seems to think it violates Wikipedia Good Faith when people point out that I'm a friend of Dave Winer, surely it is also appropriate to note your own relationship to him--for example, your blogpost saying that others have called you a stalker of Dave Winer, while he has called you "abusive and persistent and stupid as dirt." [1] I do not think that Dave Winer's bio summary was improved by your removing the list of dialects and APIs to which he has made major contributions, and with which his name is widely associated. And, during more than a month since I made that change, not one Wikipedia editor has agreed with your attempt to whittle down his technical history into "... contributed to several popular dialects and APIs related to web publishing"--that is, nobody has reverted my reversion. Furthermore, the actual degree to which Dave did or did not contribute to any of these subjects is a matter for the body of the biography, not the summary, and perhaps for the articles on those dialects/APIs themselves. betsythedevine 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Betsy, I'd like to remove my comments from the discussion page for Dave Winer - basically I don't want to be associated with a balance of opinion argument over Winer's technical contributions because I believe the entry should reflect the documented facts rather than any arbitrary consensus. (I'm not actually sure what the Wikipedia policy is in this particular regard). But I'll also acknowledge that any statements I make regarding Winer may be seen as been coloured by communications I've had with him in the past (such as that gratuitous insult from him that you noted), and as such are likely to be compromised in terms of NPOV. I don't know what you want to do with your half of the dialog, but I intend to delete mine, and hope you will respect my wishes and not revert. 80.104.217.162 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Footnote for the benefit of User:Nirelan

The arguments User:Danja raised on my talk page about Dave Winer were discussed in detail in the appropriate place, which is the Dave Winer talk page, a discussion now archived but findable in Talk:Dave_Winer#Old_threads. They did not and do not represent a consensus POV about Dave Winer. And now, three months after that dust-up, Danja and I are working together to make Wikipedia better by trying to compile and add accurate information about the early history of RSS. betsythedevine 14:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)