Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/Special report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

  • Regarding Ashley Feinberg's HuffPo article, it is also noteworthy that on Talk:Axios_(website) (a discussion page that has seen 99 edits by Sussman so far), Sussman stated in May that Feinberg's "accusations are the subject of an upcoming libel claim [by himself] against HuffPo". Feinberg's piece remains online and Sussman's demand that the Wikipedia article on Axios should not cite it was rejected by other editors in an RfC. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sussman, given the length of backlog of flagged revisions on de-wiki (which is just the first 100 edits), could you explain how on Earth your method would work? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion was made in light of the BBC's recent investigation into the Chinese government possibly secretly editing Wikipedia at large scale using coordinated teams of editors [1], allegations of Russian government trolls allegedly using Wikipedia to influence Brexit [2], and known instances of political operatives using Wikipedia to smear opponents. This is the same problem facing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube -- only a very, very tiny percentage of posts are damaging to democracy, but those posts which are, are very damaging. Congress and the public are finding after-the-fact reporting and take-downs to be unacceptable for Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. They are endeavoring to find automated and moderated solutions -- my own suggestion might be very crude, but it gets to the gist of the problem. BC1278 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The end notes to Farrow's book mention only the one HuffPo story and a quote from one Talk page as Farrow's sources. User:SoWhy, an uninvolved admin summarizing the admin consensus of the ANI review said HuffPo's story was written by someone who “has no idea how Wikipedia works” and that I had not violated any Wikipedia policies or Terms of Use. [3]. User: Swarm, an admin who was involved in the discussion, did his own summary of the ANI review: "Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior." [4] Many editors looked at every contribution I ever made and found no policy violations. although I do appreciate and take seriously the complaints that I can be too wordy. My entire consulting practice is based on ethical behavior and strictly following policies to the best of my ability.BC1278 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One specific point about SoWhy's column: Regarding the article about Andrew Lack, I submitted that article for AfC in August of 2016. The New York Times and New Yorker reporting on Weinstein was in October of 2017. I couldn't mention events that had not yet happened.BC1278 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make it clear, the "freeze direct public editing of all articles" is known as flagged revisions (WP:Flagged revisions). The system is used on every article by some projects including German Wikipedia, though I believe the edits are still shown by default (but may be configured to not be shown before they are flagged, similarly to our pending changes protection).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers here may be interested to know that I recently identified several single-purpose accounts whitewashing the page for Black Cube, the private intelligence firm hired by Weinstein to follow Farrow. The page needs some cleanup to undo the damage if anyone is inclined. Sdkb (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The endnotes of Farrow's book are not exhaustive, since the book is full of original reporting on a topic where confidentiality of sources is particularly important. There may be times when I'd be willing to second-guess a New Yorker fact-checker, but this isn't one of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing arrogance from BC1278 (talk) to suggest he is more credible than a Pulitzer-winning journalist. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Newslinger talk 04:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "I'm calling on Wikipedia to freeze direct public editing of all articles. Every edit should be reviewed by experienced editors prior to publication, just as every edit I propose is." – There are very good reasons to vet paid edits using the {{Request edit}} procedure. Considering the lack of repercussions for requesting biased or inaccurate edits, paid editors have every incentive to request edits that portray their employers in a positive light, against the neutral point of view policy. (In most cases, the worst possible result for a biased or inaccurate edit request is that the request gets rejected.) Editors with no conflict of interest are needed to ensure that the edit requests from paid editors comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

    The fact that paid edits are subjected to more scrutiny than non-COI edits is entirely intentional. Community resources are limited, and it is better for the encyclopedia when we dedicate our time and effort to areas that are most in need of attention. There are simply not enough resources to require all non-COI edits to undergo a review procedure; the peer-reviewed Nupedia was superseded by Wikipedia for similar reasons. In light of available resources, it makes sense for the community to prioritize the vetting of paid edits, which are more likely to be biased and inaccurate than non-COI edits in the absence of a vetting process. In contrast, the proposal to "freeze direct public editing of all articles" would divert community resources away from where they are needed the most, benefiting Sussman's interests at the expense of Wikipedia as a whole. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this flies in the face of reality. There are perhaps two or three edit requests per day from self-disclosed COI editors, compared to more than 45,000 daily edits on Wikipedia WP: Stats - one edit every 1.8 seconds. The actors intent on using Wikipedia for propaganda, promotion, revenge, or damaging their corporate rivals edit in secret. Open and immediate contributions, without screening, is a model developed in a more innocent time on the internet, before the dark-side of user generated content became well-known. Nupedia was written by volunteer subject-matter experts with articles pre-screened by volunteer subject matter experts. Wikipedia-wide adoption of WP: Flagged Revisions is completely different. If people knew their edits had to be reviewed prior to publications, I'd guess that many more would volunteer to be reviewers. BC1278 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whataboutism is a poor justification for a proposal that reduces scrutiny of paid edits relative to all edits on Wikipedia. The vast majority of those 45,000 edits per day are not motivated by personal gain, except for the satisfaction of having contributed to the encyclopedia. Unless your proposal includes an extremely large recurring donation of time and/or money to support editor recruitment and engagement, the burden of reviewing 45,000 edits per day, most of which don't have issues, will negatively impact the encyclopedia. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Special_report&oldid=925900468"