Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-07-23
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Skeptic: Orange Mike
- Does Wikipedia Pay? is an ongoing Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the people involved.
- The first three interviews in this series (see navigation box on the lower right) focused on individuals who actively promote or attempt to accommodate paid editing. That is obviously not the entire story, else this topic would not be one of the most contentious on Wikipedia. To balance out the full spectrum of discourse, this 4th and then the 5th and final interview will be with some of the more strident critics or opponents of the current paid editing set-up.
- Many editors patrol conflict-of-interest territory. One of the most active and the most vocal is long-time Wikipedian Orange Mike. Orange Mike signed on to the Paid Advocacy Watch and has been a frequent contributor to the COI noticeboard. Orange Mike's view of the subject is "skeptical, if not downright cynical", a position reflected in his careful monitoring of articles written by paid editors.
- The Signpost spoke with Orange Mike to better understand the threat he thinks paid editing poses and what he thinks needs to change to keep Wikipedia thriving.
How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024
"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023
The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023
Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022
The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022
Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022
Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021
Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021
Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021
Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021
A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021
Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020
How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020
Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020
Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020
WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020
Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020
Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020
Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020
Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020
Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020
Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020
2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020
English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019
Women's history month
31 March 2019
Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018
Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017
Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015
Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015
Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015
Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015
Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015
A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015
Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015
Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015
Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014
PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014
Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014
Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014
Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014
WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013
PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013
Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012
Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012
Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012
Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010
License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006
Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006
Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006
German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005
What got you started on Wikipedia? What has made you stay around so long?
It was in 2004, when comments elsewhere led me to discover that the coverage of science fiction fandom and fanzines was inadequate and incorrect. From there, by the old "browsing randomly through the encylopedia" syndrome, I discovered other areas where I could help improve this global project, and provide further information to the world: how cool is that!
When did paid advocacy come onto your radar as a problem?
From the beginning, it was obvious that some people were just trying to use Wikipedia to sell something.
How do you feel about the "bright line", the policy proposal supported by Jimmy Wales that paid editors never make direct changes to articles?
| “ | From the beginning, it was obvious that some people were just trying to use Wikipedia to sell something. | ” |
It seems like the necessary minimum, a good place to start; with the obvious caveat that reversion of vandalism (and I mean real vandalism, not "we don't want that story publicized") is not a problem.
Do you think there's a risk from setting a more strict policy that it drives paid editing further underground?
Certainly there's a risk, as there is to more active enforcement of any kind of rules. But we have to take a principled stand on the issue, to send a clear and unambiguous message; and as it is, it's not like there aren't covert paid editors with less ethics than the CREWE folks, out there messing with our articles every day.
PR professionals from CREWE are complaining about the response times on talk pages. Do you think Wikipedia needs to do something to better accommodate them?
No. Wikipedia does not exist as a convenience for them and their bosses. Why should they be privileged above anybody else? Most of the whiners don't bother to learn how we work, and seem unable or unwilling to do so. How complicated is it to post a {{helpme}} tag?
Do you think PR people can be good Wikipedia editors? How often? Can their talk page contribution improve articles? How likely are they to make Wikipedia better?
Many of them are intelligent human beings, and could contribute to this project in other fields, if they wanted to: but not in the area where they are acting as hirelings. Their remarks in talk pages, when genuinely intended to improve the article from an NPOV and accompanied by proper disclosure of COI, can be valuable, and should always be welcomed. A more accurate Wikipedia is a better Wikipedia: never forget that. On the other hand: there is something about that trade that seems to kill the part of a human being's mind that says, "Wait a minute: that's not really true or accurate!", or at least numbs it. Of course, in modern Western society, where people are raised on a non-stop diet of advertising, that part of human judgement seems to have pretty much atrophied in general: look at what passes for political discourse!
How do you think the community's views on paid editing have evolved since 2006, when the media first picked up on it?
I'm not sure how much they have, really. I think a few of the older editors (I won't name names) have been burned by assuming good faith on the part of editors who turned out to be cynically manipulating our trust and openness. We've certainly burned up a lot of pixels talking about it, though.
| “ | I think a few of the older editors have been burned by assuming good faith on the part of editors who turned out to be cynically manipulating our trust and openness. | ” |
What motivated you to join WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch?
To provide another set of eyes, as we say, in an area where we are always going to be vulnerable.
The article I contributed to about CREWE is at the top of Paid Advocacy Watch's list to be checked for paid advocacy. Does this mean you have concerns about the article?
Well, duh! There is no industry more obsessed about its own image than the PR industry: look at the spammy articles about PR agencies, the way they hand out little statuettes and plaques to each other, the way they obsess with rankings and billings, etc. It would be beyond belief that the more ethically-challenged members of that trade would not be tempted, at least, to shade the nuances, to "give the truth scope".
What is Paid Advocacy Watch working on now?
I don't watch it that sedulously, so I can't say off the top of my head.
What would you say about the relationship between Wikiproject Cooperation and Paid Advocacy Watch? How are they different? Can they work together?
WikiProject Cooperation is much more trusting, more naïve in its approach to paid editing and paid editors; whereas Paid Advocacy Watch is more skeptical, if not downright cynical.
Do you think it should be policy that paid COI editors declare their conflict of interest?
Hell, yeah!
Do you think Wikipedia is accountable for being accurate? What is your response to the survey publicized as stating that 60 percent of PR professionals claim there are errors on their clients' Wikipedia page (note that many in the community disagreed with the phrasing of the conclusion, including this Signpost Investigative Report). Does this justify editing privileges?
1) Of course we are accountable for accuracy, in all four million articles. 2) The survey, biased though it was, didn't say that, and I'm tired of the Big Lie tactics which are responsible for deliberately spreading the disinformation that it did. Always read the source documents, not the spindoctors' reports about them.
With the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, Wikiproject Cooperation's Paid editor help board, and Template:edit request, do you think there's a need for another or a single centralized place for paid editors to seek assistance and feedback?
I think we are already bending over backwards to accommodate them.
Do you think editors motivated by professional or monetary gains taint Wikipedia's nobility and independence?
No more than ideological cranks and single-issue fanatics; but that is quite a lot. The thing about mercenary editors is that they are paid (very well, in some cases) to do this full-time, and to persist in trying to sneak across the line and plant their distortions and spam; whereas those watching the borders for raids are more like me, a clerical worker working on his lunch break and weekends, who couldn't even afford to go to Wikimania when it was held in his own country!
| “ | The thing about mercenary editors is that they are paid (very well, in some cases) to do this full-time, and to persist in trying to sneak across the line and plant their distortions and spam. | ” |
If you personally could make money from working on Wikipedia in some capacity, either as a paid editor, a freelance writer, or a consultant, would you ever consider it?
Only if I abandoned the pleasure and duty of being a legitimate Wikipedian; which means you'd have to pay me a damned good salary with a solid contract in order for me to make that heartbreaking choice. I have nothing against being a paid writer: I am already a freelance writer, have been for over a quarter of a century; and if I were paid professional rates for what I do here, I could retire from my day job. Instead, I do it for the joy of adding to the sum of readily available human knowledge.
Was there anything you wanted to add about your personal COI efforts, such as at COI/N? Maybe a story about an article you cleaned up...?
I really like helping the noobs who honestly don't understand why what they are doing is wrong, but whose topic is genuinely notable and does need an article. Most of these, of course, are non-profits rather than corporations. On the other hand, sometimes I'm really distressed when I have to be the big ol' meanie and tell somebody that their topic just isn't for Wikipedia. The latter, unfortunately, includes the Irish dance troupe my wife and daughter have both danced with: I had to reject an article about it, because it failed to establish notability and lacked reliable sources! I'd love to see a new one written, but I'm not about to touch that myself.
Do you think paid editing could ever be completely stopped? Is that your ideal outcome?
It certainly can't, without changing our model beyond recognizability or utility. It would be my ideal, I guess, that only those genuinely seeking to make this project more accurate were to edit; but we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
| “ | It would be my ideal that only those genuinely seeking to make this project more accurate were to edit; but we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. | ” |
What's your favorite piece of advice about editing Wikipedia?
Advice: "If you don't want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."
Quote: My own line about doing New Page Patrol and COI watch, which I describe as: "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage!"
Last, do you think paid COI editing is a natural part of the encyclopedia's evolution or a grave threat to its future?
Both.
Reader comments
Signpost developments
The Signpost's goal is to provide readers with essential information about the Wikimedia movement and the English Wikipedia – both of which have become large and extremely complex institutions that require timely, balanced and in-depth coverage. The movement has now evolved into a tripartite structure with three interacting layers: the foundation, almost 300 language-based editor communities, and a growing number of chapters that currently number 39. To this must be added the recent innovations of thematic organizations and user groups.
The international importance of the movement is shown by the record levels of monetary donations at a time of economic uncertainty in most of the world. For the coming financial year, the foundation's budget is US$42 million, about a quarter of which will be allocated to eligible entities, including chapters, through the movement's experiment with the Funds Dissemination Committee. This extraordinary growth and the willingness of the movement to develop its methods and structures is further reason that providing clear, concise reportage is essential.
As part of the Signpost's goal, we are trialing a new front page. It is our hope that the new design will give the Signpost a more modern look while retaining the simplicity of the previous version. The new design was launched two weeks ago, and after modifications based on readers' feedback, we hope to keep it on a permanent basis. Before we do so, we invite you to comment on it on our feedback page. Other constructive suggestions for improving the readability of our stories are welcome.
Last week's Special report focused on the new Wikimedia Chapters Association and the controversy around the selection of its first chair, who was the subject of a recently closed arbitration case on the English Wikipedia. The story attracted an unusual number of negative comments on the talk page, including the labeling of the report as a "hatchet job" and as an article worthy of the National Enquirer. The Signpost treats talk-page feedback as a valuable part of our role as journalists, particularly for controversial coverage, but I do not accept the hyperbole directed at the Signpost in these latest comments. The topic was one that the Signpost deemed of interest to a wide segment of our readership, and of sufficient importance to deserve a separate investigative piece; nevertheless, we will keep the comments in mind as we continue to cover the movement as it matures.
In short closing notes: the Signpost inadvertently caused EdwardsBot to be blocked on the German Wikipedia when the automated publishing process was run twice. This was a mistake that will not happen again, and I apologize to the bot operator (MZMcBride) and inconvenienced editors of the German Wikipedia. The promised second Wikimania special, focusing on some of the prominent sessions, will be published when videos of them are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.
Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown
The Russian community's action was the third protest of its kind, after the SOPA/PIPA shutdown on the English Wikipedia last January and the Italian Wikipedia blackout last October over a new privacy bill. The English-language shutdown played a major role in the dumping of the Congressional proposal, and while the Russian and Italian bills still passed, the community-led protests in those two countries appear to have exerted influence in making them less objectionable to the movement's goals of achieving internet freedom.
The Wikimedia Foundation's head of communications, Jay Walsh, posted a message of support to the volunteers of the Russian Wikipedia: "... many in the Wikimedia movement recognize that this legislation is similar to other bills being proposed or passed around the world that could hinder free speech and produce situations where governments could censor information. Non-censorship and freedom of speech are core values of the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation."
Among the questions now are how effective the blackout was and where we go from here in terms of internet freedom in one of the world's biggest and most influential countries. The head of Wikimedia Russia, Vladimir Medeyko, told the Signpost that despite the passage of the law, the blackout had gained wide publicity. "It was reported in newspapers and on all major domestic Russian TV channels, as well as on the Russian CNN channel, Ukrainian TV news, and the Mir company, which also broadcasts in Kazakhstan. Overall, they took a fairly even-handed angle in their reporting."
But Medeyko anticipates no more blackouts in Russia: "I think it would look too political. One action is fine—it's effective. But if we did it again, in the Russian political culture it would be laughed at as an overtly political ploy."
There are two immediate aftermaths, he says: first, some changes were made in the wording of the bill that do slightly reduce the likelihood of misuse; and second, senior government officials gave Wikimedians assurances that the law will not be used to suppress freedom of speech on the internet, and agreed to make efforts to improve the situation by further amending bills or regulations. Further amendments may be scheduled for November and will be considered by two government committees before then—one instigated by Elena Mizulina, a member of the Duma and one of the main authors and proponents of the amendment; and one by Nikolai Nikiforov, the Russian minister for information who, like all ministers, reports to president Putin through prime minister Medvedev, and is not a member of the Duma.
The Russian Wikipedia community has been invited to make submissions to both committees. Medeyko told us, "I caught up with Mizulina immediately after the voting for the bill, during which she assurred us we would have input into the process. Mizulina is the head of the Duma's committee on family, women, and children—one of the overt concerns of the bill was to act against child pornography on the internet. "Both Nikiforov and Mizulina use the Russian Wikipedia as far as I know," he says, "but are unlikely to have edited it."
On a scale from 1 (no freedom) to 10 (complete freedom), Medeyko rates internet freedom in Russia around 5, down from 6 before the amendments. Given this, we asked what he believes are the minimum, politically realistic changes to the law that would give the country acceptable internet freedom. "There should be a clear definition of the reasons that would justify shutting down a site; there should be a feasible procedure to quickly restore a site after fair and open judicial review; and we need independent and just courts—but the last requirement may involve complex issues that are difficult to resolve in the short term." The Russian community will be discussing their input on-wiki, which will be formally put to the government committees by the chapter.
How powerful is the bureaucracy compared with the politicians themselves? Do the bureaucrats make the real decisions? Medeyko says "I think it's a mix. The policians tended to express pro-Wikipedia, pro-internet opinion as a reaction to the blackout, since it's not in their interests to alienate online users in Russia. This is a good start in our negotiations with the bureaucrats."
Medeyko's overall take is optimistic. "The chapter hopes that this phase in our relationship with the government will be productive and will reinforce both freedom on the Russian-language internet and the independence of Wikimedia projects in our language."
In brief
- Four perfect RfAs: As of 5:13 UTC, the English Wikipedia requests for adminship (RfAs) of Berean Hunter, SarahStierch, Yunshui, and Mark Arsten all have 100% support. The situation stands in sharp contrast to recent news of an RfA "drought" blamed on increasingly – perhaps even unreasonably – high standards on the largest Wikimedia wikis (see, for example, a previous Signpost story on whether RfA is "broken"). The Signpost offers its congratulations to the editors for volunteering to become admins, and to the community for giving useful feedback.
- Nominations open for FDC: The Funds Dissemination Committee is the key part of the movement's financial reforms. With the support of foundation staff, it will recommend to the board how more than US$11M of donors' funds will be allocated to eligible entities during the 2012–13 financial year. Nominations for the committee are open at Meta, and will run to a tight schedule, given that the committee is expected to begin operations in September. Nominations are also open on the same page for the ombudsperson connected with the role of the FDC.
- Wikimedia Thailand meetup: In a move to revive the meetup forum for Thailand's Wikimedians, an event is scheduled for Sunday 29 July at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. Further details are at Meta.
- Main-page redesign competition: Four proposals have been lodged, and discussion about the issue continues on the competition talk page. The competition has attracted coverage by the German Wikipedia's news outlet Kurier, under the heading "Startseiten-Wettbewerb in en.wp".
Reader comments
Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics
- The new WikiProject Animals in Media is looking for members
- The Indian Cinema Task Force is hoping to celebrate 100 years of Indian cinema with an ambitious plan to improve Wikipedia's coverage
- The July Copyedit Drive is in full swing, but you can still join and earn barnstars for your efforts
With the 2012 Summer Olympic Games beginning this weekend in London, we decided to catch up with the chaps at WikiProject Olympics. The last time we interviewed WikiProject Olympics was in February 2010 when the project was gearing up for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. We wanted to know how the project has grown since then and whether preparing for a Summer Olympics was more grueling.
How long have you been a member of WikiProject Olympics? Have you contributed to any of the project's Featured or Good Articles?
- Basement12: I joined WikiProject Olympics at the start of the 2008 Games in Beijing, since then I've worked on a number of Good Articles, particularly relating to the Great Britain team and have helped get Paralympic medal tables to Featured List status.
- LauraHale: A few months. I have helped take 11 articles about women's water polo players going to the 2012 Olympics to GA and worked to nominate Lauren Jackson for GA. I've worked on three articles about Paralympians that have gone to GA.
The last time we interviewed WikiProject Olympics, the project was revving up for the 2010 Winter Olympics. How has the project changed since then? Do you feel confident that the project can handle future Olympic Games?
- Basement12: Personally I haven't been that active in the last 12 months but I'd say that the work put in during the 2008 and 2010 Games to standardise the formats for the various styles of article the project deals with means that we are now better equipped to handle future Games.
- LauraHale: Not sure how it has changed, but I think it can do a good job. A lot of that comes down to different national groups working with specific sports to work together to improve content together. The major challenge is making sure things have sources when adding them.
With the 2012 Summer Olympics just days away, have you noticed any differences in the way the project prepares for a Summer Olympics compared to a Winter Olympics? Do the sports associated with the Summer and Winter Games attract different editors to WikiProject Olympics?
- LauraHale: The Summer Olympics have more work being done that is supported by Wikiprojects. We're beginning to talk about 2014 and sending more Wikipedians to the Winter Paralympics, what work we can do right now with the summer to help justify Wikimedians getting press credentials for the Winter Olympics.
With London hosting this year's Olympics, do you expect photography will be easier or harder to acquire? Have you already lined up some Londoners to snap pictures of the venues and events? What other ways can residents and visitors in London help the project meet its needs?
- Basement12: The major problem with obtaining photography has been finding pictures released under a suitable license, however with increasing numbers of people uploading their photos to online sharing sites I would hope we'll be able to find more. As a Londoner who'll be attending the Games I hope to be able to provide some photos myself and would encourage others to do so.
- LauraHale: The IPC has made it clear that pictures taken at the Games can only be licensed as CC-BY-NC. The IOC is probably more restrictive or as restrictive. This makes it harder to do things. That said, if some one wants to get pictures of their Olympians and Paralympians, they could if they have the determination to make it happen in advance. In Australia, we have profile shots of the women's national water polo team, quality training pictures of the Australia women's national basketball team and some head shots of the Australian gymnastics team. We also have a few pictures of Paralympians, including a rower and four track athletes. These were attained by gaining press access to media events, demonstrating a track record of success, etc.
How well are past Olympics covered by Wikipedia? Are there any glaring gaps in coverage? What resources are available for researching historical events, competitors, and venues?
- Basement12: I think we've reached a point where the majority of results from previous Olympic Games are included but there is often a lack of prose to flesh things out. Coverege of the Paralympics is less complete but has been improved greatly since the founding of the Paralympics Taskforce. The best sources for Olympic Games are the official reports, produced after each Games by the Organising Committees, and results databases such as sports-reference.com. For the Paralympics the online database provided by the International Paralympic Committee is possibly the most useful resource.
- LauraHale: The coverage of women can be lacking. The older things are at times, the less the quality is. Pictures for competitiors during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are often lacking. Some countries have better coverage than others and some sports have better coverage than others. Often, it comes down to who puts the effort to write things up. For Australia, I like to use the National Sport Information Centre. They have a fantastic library, including bid books from the games, result books, magazines. http://trove.nla.gov.au is a fantastic Australian resource for older stuff. I've wandered down to NSIC to get information for people.
Have you been involved with the Paralympics or Olympic Bids task forces? What role do the task forces play in improving Wikipedia's overall coverage of the Olympics?
- Basement12: I've been involved with the Paralympics taskforce. Paralympic articles require as much work as those for the Olympics but attract less editors, the taskforce is essential for writing and maintaining articles relating to its events and athletes that may otherswise be neglected.
- LauraHale: Been involved as a member of the HOPAU project to improve Australian Paralympians. When we started last May, we had about 30 Australian Paralympic related articles. Now, we are over 300 and two Australians will go to the London Games to cover them for Wikinews and Wikipedia. We got through at least 35 articles to DYK, and 5 articles to GA. This has had a flow on effect for getting articles about the 2000 Summer Paralympics, and New Zealand articles improved. Australians have also done work with Estonians that resulted in at least one Estonian Paralympic DYK. I don't know that the task force does much as the level of participation is low. In this case, I think chapter and national related work has been a bigger driver in improving coverage though the task forces do play a role.
What are the most urgent needs of WikiProject Olympics? How can a new contributor help today?
- Basement12: Whilst there is plenty of work still to be done on older articles those relating to 2012 are likely to receive vast amounts of traffic in the coming weeks so are a more pressing need. The 2012 Games will feature over 300 events, 200 nations and 10,000 athletes all of which will have articles that will need to updated or written from scratch. I'd encourage editors to start work on articles relating to their home nation as they may have access to local news/media sources that may not be available to others, alternatively you could try adopting one of the nations whose pages haven't updated.
- LauraHale: Start improving articles about competitors in your country. Develop relationships with sport organisations to help content improvement work: get permission to take pictures of athletes for Commons, interview them and report on them for Wikinews and take articles to DYK. This is urgently needed for going forward. Beyond that, find your favourite Olympian who doesn't have an article yet and take them to WP:DYK. It is simple and great way to get involved.
Next week we'll gallop down the final stretch. Until then, study the odds in the archive.
Reader comments
Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans
For the second time this year (and the fourth in the history of the committee), there are no open cases, as all three active cases were closed last week.
Closed cases
The case concerning alleged misconduct by Fæ has ended. For violations of common wikipractice and policies Fæ was indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Michaeldsuarez was indefinitely banned for his creation of an external attack site targeting Fæ. For his role in posting undisclosed personal information on an external site, Delicious carbuncle was severely admonished and warned that should future instances occur, s/he will face sanctions up to and including an indefinite ban.
Fæ is limited to one account and denied the option of a clean start. If he wishes to change the username of the one account he may use, he must seek prior permission from the committee. He must make a list of all previous accounts to the committee for public listing. Should he object to the listing of any of these accounts, the committee will advise him as to whether or not they should be omitted. Given his resignation under "controversial circumstances", Fæ must start a new request for adminship should he wish to regain the tools and must link to the committee's statement during his RfA.
The case concerning behavioural issues related to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley has ended. Homunculus and Ohconfucius are banned for one year and indefinitely, respectively, from the discussion and editing of topics related to the Falun Gong movement, across all namespaces. Homunculus, Colipon and Ohconfucius have been placed on mandated external review—in the case of Homunculus and Ohconfucius, if their ban were overturned—requiring these editors to seek consensus for major edits beyond grammatical and aesthetic changes. Once consensus has been established, the discussion must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor, after whose approval these editors may proceed.
The case concerning wheel-warring on the Perth article, after a contentious requested move discussion, has ended. For using administrative tools while involved in the dispute and undiscussed reversion of the move, Kwamikagami has been desysopped. For reversing a legitimate administrative action without prior discussion, Deacon of Pndapetzim was admonished; Gnangarra was admonished for reinstating the reverted decision without discussion. JHunterJ was advised to respond civilly to queries regarding his conduct and administrative actions.
Motions
Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin has proposed a motion requiring the alteration of any instances of an editor's previous username in arbitration decisions to reflect their name change(s). Any instances appearing within the:
- enforcement log may be updated by any uninvolved administrator on request;
- text of a finding or remedy may be updated by the clerks on request; and
- evidence submissions of a case or other preliminary documents may be updated by the clerks with the committee's prior approval.
Reader comments
The future of PR on Wikipedia
- David King is the founder of EthicalWiki, a firm specializing in Wikipedia–commercial relations. The views expressed are those of the author only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section.
- The Signpost welcomes proposals for op-eds. If you have one in mind, please leave a message at the opinion desk.
There has never been a better time to improve the behavior of marketing professionals on Wikipedia. For the first time we're seeing self-imposed statements of ethics. Professional PR bodies around the globe have supported the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) guidance for ethical Wikipedia engagement (not to directly edit articles). Although their tone is different, CREWE and the PRSA have brought more attention to the issues. Awareness among PR professionals is rising. So are the number of paid editing operations sprouting up and the opportunity for dialogue.
We have an opportunity to shape this relationship, influence behavior, establish processes, set policy and improve administration. If we can establish a beneficial relationship with companies, we can improve Wikipedia's credibility by reducing overt advertising, while reducing the burden of policing disruptive COIs. We can transform disruptive editors into helpful ones and maybe even turn some PR people into volunteers. To get there, we need to identify a more natural and productive relationship between PR people and Wikipedians.
A natural role
Our approach to COI often tries to transform PR people into Wikipedians. We ask COIs to write as if they don't have a conflict of interest (but we do), try to avoid bias (but we are) and learn Wikipedia's rules (but most of us don't want to). It's unnatural for any independent news and information source to ask PR professionals to play the role of journalist to cover their own story. This is our instinct as Wikipedians - to share and teach our culture, process and rules.
Rather than putting PR professionals in the role of reporting on themselves, while simultaneously cautioning against it, a more natural relationship would be to encourage companies to do public relations on Wikipedia, instead of paid editing. Public relations is about helping journalists (citizen journalists in this case) cover the story with resources, expertise and content.
For example, imagine the range of circumstances, where doing PR on Wikipedia is universally helpful and less controversial:
- Every PR agency could have an intern share their media coverage reports on the Talk page for sources in the article. 51 percent of article tags on company articles have to do with needing more citations.
- I wrote most of the article on Edelman years ago, but the Talk page still has dozens of paid-access sources. The article would get improved if Edelman could provide the full text of these sources.
- In improving articles on the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and Cornerstone Barristers, in both cases the company could have answered questions I had on the Talk page.
- I find that in our effort to present all majority and minority viewpoints, the company's own point-of-view is rarely presented on issues they're involved in. PR is the best place to get this perspective that is currently missing (and balance it with other perspectives)
This is a more natural relationship analogous to the non-controversial ways PR works with professional journalists. We respect a journalist's autonomy, their right to publish the article how they please and the expectation that they will write in a tone that serves their readers. However, the journalist finds value in working with a PR professional, who makes it easier for them to write the story by being a resource.
It would be a positive thing for Wikipedia to see a day where we could go to the article on any major brand, find their PR person on the Talk page and ask them for sources on their latest acquisition or technical help understanding their latest standard.
What we can do
I suggest we take a proactive role in discouraging bad behavior. We can raise our content standards, investigate undisclosed paid editing, and embarrass companies for clear censorship attempts in situations where we can't reasonably AGF.
On the other hand, instead of merely throwing cautions everywhere for PR editing, we can give them clear instructions on how to contribute in ways that are generally accepted, helpful and less controversial. There's an essay in the works along these lines of providing advice for participation that has broader acceptance and is less controversial. Whatever your opinion is on COI, most of us can agree that companies donating images, sharing sources and answering questions are helpful ways to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies that should actually be encouraged.
We can also improve the clarity of the COI guideline, create an AFC-like system for {{edit COI}}s, give companies a method to voluntarily block their IP address and improve templates. Let's give companies a better opportunity to contribute in ways that are helpful and make disruptive and promotional behavior less appealing.
Reader comments
When is an island not an island?
Featured articles
One featured article was promoted this week:
- Melville Island (Nova Scotia) (nom) by Nikkimaria. Melville Island, a small peninsula in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, was discovered by Europeans in the 1600s and initially used for storehouses. The land was purchased by the British and used to hold prisoners of war, then to receive escaped slaves from the United States. After being used as a place of quarantine and later a recruitment centre, the land was granted to Canada in 1907 and used to house prisoners of war. It is now home to the clubhouse and marina of the Armdale Yacht Club.
Featured lists
Three featured lists were promoted this week:
- York City F.C. league record by opponent (nom) by Mattythewhite. York City Football Club, an English association football club based in York, North Yorkshire, was founded in 1922. Since then the club have won one Football League title in the 1983–84 season and faced 157 different teams. They have played most often against Darlington and Wrexham, while they have the most wins over Rochdale.
- Nebula Award for Best Novelette (nom) by PresN. The Nebula Award is an American prize for science fiction writing. Science fiction-themed novelettes, defined as works between 7,500 and 17,500 words in length, are chosen by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. The award has been handed out annually since 1966.
- Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent (nom) by Bladeboy1889. Sheffield United Football Club, an English football club based at Bramall Lane in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, was established in 1889. Since then the club have faced 112 different teams. They have played most often against Blackburn Rovers; Rovers are also the team against whom they have the most wins. The most losses are against Aston Villa.
Featured pictures
Three featured pictures were promoted this week:
- A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains (nom; related article), created by Wang Ximeng and nominated by Brandmeister. A Thousand Li of Rivers and Mountains was completed in 1113 and measures 11.9 meters (39 ft) long. It is Wang's only extant work and has been described as one of the greatest works of Chinese art.
- Dulhadeo Temple (nom; related article), created by Sfu and nominated by Tomer T. Dulhadeo Temple is a temple in the Khajuraho Group of Monuments in India. Built sometime between 1000 and 1150, it is dedicated to Lord Shiva.
- Calidris alba (nom; related article) by JJ Harrison. The Sanderling (Calidris alba) is a small wader which breeds around the Arctic and winters in the Southern Hemisphere. It measures 18–20 centimetres (7.1–7.9 in) in length, with weight ranging from 40 to 100 grams (1.4 to 3.5 oz).
._1113._Palace_museum,_Beijing.jpg){kind=link}
Reader comments
Translating SVGs and making history bugs history
Google Summer of Code: TranslateSvg
In the first of a series looking at this year's eight ongoing Google Summer of Code projects, the Signpost caught up with developer Harry Burt, which wasn't too tricky, given that he is also the regular writer of this report. Burt explained what his project was about, his success so far – final submissions are due in a month's time – and what impact it might have on the Wikimedia community:
| “ | On 9 July 2011, South Sudan declared independence, and during that buzz, an Italian Wikimedian found his map showing the borders of the new nation had been translated into a dozen other languages, among them English, Greek, Catalan, and Macedonian. These copies were then uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons as separate files. Of course, one would expect the map to change significantly over the next decade. More often than not, these kinds of change are picked up first by editors of the larger projects, who rapidly update their own versions of the map. To do so takes, say, 20 minutes; but to replicate that same change across Catalan, Greek, Macedonian? Hours of work – and dozens of separate uploads.
My project, named "TranslateSvg", changes this workflow – for SVG format files at least – firstly by making it easier to translate those files (thus reducing the all-too-common sight of English-language diagrams in use on non-English wikis), and secondly by embedding the new translations within the same SVG file. When boundaries change, a single update will propagate to all language versions instantly. It's the smaller projects that will benefit the most, picking up those image updates that are performed every day by users of larger projects, but there are gains for larger wikis too from the reverse process. I would say that progress has been good so far: the main hurdle remaining is code review, and it's during that period that the project will either sink or swim. If the latter, TranslateSvg could find its way onto Wikimedia Commons before the end of the year. |
” |
Burt's blog following development on TranslateSvg is syndicated on planet.wikimedia.org.
In brief
.png)
Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for several weeks.
- MediaWiki 1.20wmf8 begins deployment cycle: 1.20wmf8 – the eighth release to Wikimedia wikis from the 1.20 branch – was deployed to its first wikis on July 23 and will be deployed to all wikis by August 1. The release incorporates approximately two hundred changes to the MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia, comprising 94 "core" changes plus a similar number of patches for WMF-deployed extensions. Among the changes (the product of a fortnight of development time, allbeit one disrupted by Wikimania) are improvements to the way Special:MyPage handles additional URL parameters (bug #35060; for example, &redirect=no) and a fix to Special:Contributions' "newbie" mode to exclude new bots from the display (revision #14674). A release to external sites including the same selection of bug fixes and new features is not expected for some time.
- History bug marked resolved: After an investigation lasting nearly two months, developers are now confident they have fully resolved bug #37225. The bug, which intermittently caused null revisions to be erroneously recorded – and with non-zero byte change numbers – had prompted dozens of comments across many wikis, including at least 5 threads on the English Wikipedia's technical village pump alone. It was eventually traced to a small change in the exact SQL command being given to the database upon a page save, a problem which has since been repaired. The fix is included in the 1.20wmf8 release, but it is not known if it will also be applied (or indeed needs to be applied) retroactively to clear old revisions from the database.
- Gerrit, but faster: The speed of Gerrit received a significant boost on Friday, when its databases were transferred from the Tampa, Florida datacentre to the WMF's other datacentre in Ashburn, Virginia, where the Gerrit frontend is hosted (wikitech-l mailing list). Developers have already noted a significant improvement in load times for all sorts of web-based Gerrit operations. The improvement comes in the midst of long discussions about the long-term viability of sticking with Gerrit, and more specifically this week, whether or not there was a "serious alternative" to the code review system, which has been in place since March (also wikitech-l).
- Requested moves bot sidelined: RM Bot, the automated bot responsible for listing requested move discussions, made its last edit Wednesday. The PHP-run bot, which has performed since November 2009, is operated by recently inactive contributor HardBoiledEggs. The community is discussing returning to manually updating the listing page until HardBoiledEggs returns; in addition, current and potential bot-operators are advised that the existing and "indispensable" bot is currently in need of a new owner.
- More dumps on the Internet Archive?: WMF developer and dumps guru Ariel Glenn this week blogged about her efforts to improve the quantity, quality and timeliness of WMF database exports (colloquially known as "dumps") hosted on the US-based Internet Archive. Wrote Glenn, "When we look back on this period of our digital history, the Archive will surely be recognized as one of the great repositories of knowledge, a project that changed forever the course of the Internet. Naturally we want Wikimedia XML dumps to be a part of this repository", before explaining her work on a new suite aimed at facilitating the upload process.
&action=info?: An old system for supplying human-readable metadata about a page could be reinvigorated if a formal Request for Comment (RFC) receives support from developers (wikitech-l mailing list). The&action=infosystem, which would complement existing pages such as&action=history, could eventually list dozens of pieces of information about a page, including such details as creation time, creator and number of revisions. Enabling the page would still require local community consensus; the current discussion relates to having such functionality in the code should projects then wish to use it.- New staff member: Long-time editor S ("yes his name really is just 'S'") Page has joined the Wikimedia Foundation as a software engineer in its Editor Engagement Experiments (E3) engineering team, WMF Director of Engineering Alolita Sharma announced this week (wikitech-l mailing list). A former ski instructor and sometime road sweeper, Page will help develop new technologies aimed at bringing in and then retaining new editors; it is not yet known what his precise focus might be.
- One bot approved: 1 BRFA was recently approved for use on the English Wikipedia:
- Hmainsbot1's 3rd BRfA, delinking date fields in articles per WP:DATELINK;
- At the time of writing, 10 BRFAs are active. As per usual, community input is encouraged.
Reader comments