Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-05-02

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-05-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request (2,377 bytes · 💬)

• Wait, am I missing something? Did Ottava Rima get unbanned after 7 years for one article only? A stub article that gets 2-5 edits per year, as well. Even with the 1RR restriction, that's as close as you get to saying "Rima now owns this article. He's a jerk and we don't trust him, but there's enough articles to go around to give him this one." For goodness sake, Rima, just make up a new name and pretend you're a new person like all the other jerks do. I really don't understand why we have this incredible bureaucracy for implementing bizarre restrictions on people that get some notoriety half a decade later when everyone's forgotten about them, while on the flip side we pass off indef bans on no-name editors like candy. --PresN 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:PresN, I agree this has been a long time coming. But of course the committee is not saying Ottava is a jerk; by majority the committee voted to welcome him back in. The offenses that led to his ban happened a long time ago but apparently were serious enough for the strictest measure. The one-article restriction was considered a good compromise, and this article was in fact what Ottava himself proposed; certainly it can be a good showcase for him to display his considerable talent. Let me add that Ottava's unban request was well written and touched upon the relevant issues, and agreed with much of what is laid out in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. (If I may, I wish all those who request unblocks and unbans were that careful: ArbCom's job isn't just to ban, it's also to let editors back in.) The committee has thought long and hard about both sides of the issue, which is why it's not just a simple "welcome back and have at it", because that would also mean that hypothetical disgruntled editors who oppose Ottava's return could have ample opportunity to bait him and get him blocked again. Personally, I hope that Ottava will go on to improve and write many more articles and improve our beautiful project, and I wish him all the best. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks (263 bytes · 💬)

• Go Djedkare!! (moment of joy!) Iry-Hor (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps (8,247 bytes · 💬)

Bureaucracy

• The bureaucracy news item is worth reading. Wikipedia has become increasingly bureaucratized over the years (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a bureaucracy), but we still seem to collectively insist that it isn't. All you need to do is look at a deletion discussion at AfD or elsewhere; unique arguments are rarely brought up, replaced with linkspam to whatever WP: pages a person can find to support their argument. Honestly, I don't think that is much of a problem myself - I think the current system, particularly for notability, works quite well. People reference the relevant guidelines but IAR can come into play when needed. But there is some benefit to being honest with ourselves, if for no other reason than making it easier for new people to become involved by being straightforward with them about how to contribute. Just some random musings I've had on the topic. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel the same way about Wikipedia's "bureaucraticness". Though the system works quite well in a lot of ways (especially notability), I think it's pretty important to realize that Wikipedia really is a bureaucracy at this point. In my experience, this is most aggravating when someone opposes to changing a guideline because said guideline clearly states that it's a guideline. I think we're doing alright. ~Mable (chat) 05:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Calling Wikipedia a bureaucracy or not usually isn't relevant unless in context. Wikipedia's bureaucracy is usually beneficial in that it functions as an expedient to complex discussions: given the precedents established in policies and guidelines we avoid having to argue everything ab initio, ad nauseam (albeit at the cost of implicitly requiring users to learn or look up said precedents). In theory, Wikipedia is relatively democratic, in that anyone can propose new precedents, or changes to existing ones, by seeking consensus to add, change, or remove a policy or guideline. In practice, Wikipedia's body of precedent is largely static; this raises the question: is it a result of a sensible, stable body of precedent that few care to contest, or is it, putatively, bureaucratic oligarchy? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • A fascinating question to be sure, and I'm not sure how one could go about answering it. You also touch on a point which I believe the article looks at (though it might have been a different article), that most of these precedents are established by a very small subset of users. For example, the local guidelines on username usurpation were established through a discussion between 11 users. Even more recent discussions, such as the current one to establish the new 'page mover' usergroup, only has the participation of some 100 users. There are 131,163 individual accounts that have edited Wikipedia in the last 30 days. Can Wikipedia be democratic without widespread participation? In theory there are no formal barriers to entry, but there are many informal ones, including technical knowledge and a desire to participate in the meta-level of the project. So I think that there are two answers to your question, based on which group of individuals you look at. When considering the "politically-active" portion of the community, it's probably the former - that the current guidelines have established a consensus which most users agree with, and thus which they commonly reference. But when looking at the "politically-inactive" supermajority of the community, it's hard to say. It is worth noting, however, that various studies of politically-inactive groups within countries show that they tend to a) favour the status quo and b) feel that their own voice would not make a difference, so I'm not trying to suggest that the politically-inactive portion of the community here would be suggesting any revolutionary change. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I figure "bureaucracy" does not precisely describe our position or even our direction, because nobody in particular is in charge of most things. Bureaucracy has someone to manage this particular movie house, others assigned to selling tickets, taking tickets, selling popcorn, pointing the way to seats, scraping the gum off seats, running the projector, bringing the film-can back to the distributor, and so forth. Most of us just flit around doing whatever needs doing. This means, some things that ought to be done, aren't. Our political system is similar. It's complex, weird, boring and optional. Thus, few participate in rule making, electing the few who are in charge of something, and so forth. Egalitarian? Of course not. Yes, many thousands are equally allowed to participate, but we don't equally know, or care to know. That's why only a small minority, an elite, actually do it all. Dreadful disappointment? Not really, unless you expected to combine equality, quality, and complexity. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Lets be honest, we all know who the corrupt and unblockable Wikioligarchs are. So keep your head down and work silently, unless you want to get boot.--Catlemur (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the article. Bureaucrats don't have nearly as much power to abuse as suggested. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think that the researchers really understand what a bureaucracy is and/or are throwing the term around for shock effect. The finding that Wikipedia's core norms have been sustained is certainly interesting and important, but the light-touch governance of Wikipedia is far from being a bureaucracy as normally defined (most internet forums have much more active governance arrangements). Could it not be the case that people are self-selecting to initially participate and then choose to remain active in Wikipedia because they like its norms, leading to a self-supporting effect? The interesting message from the research for me is how Wikipedia has managed to keep its core norms with so little active governance. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Filesharing

"What's crazy, then, is that a bunch of more-or-less random editors who happen to want to be the piracy police are dictating the means of access for an entire population of people"

If Wikimedia editors don't do that, we would have trouble with authorities. It's not our fault that it's illegal to share copyrighted files. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Too few cooks in Wikipedia ...

I added the wikilink for Philippa Glanville - is there one for the "Wiki-Food and (mostly) Women Project" mentioned in the article? DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked around for a wiki page on the project and couldn't find one. --Andreas JN466 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

OBE?

"Getting on Wikipedia should be easier than getting an OBE..."

Maybe... if people step up and do the work see 2009 New Year Honours to get some idea of the scale. If every member of the commentariat wrote as much on Wikipedia as they do about Wikipedia, it would help enormously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC).

News and notes: Wikimedia Switzerland's board and paid-editing firm; passing of Ed Dravecky (18,775 bytes · 💬)

The first thing we should always ask about paid editors is whether they are following our rules. It's nice to see that they declared their paid status pretty much in line with the Terms of Service. Certainly they followed the spirit of the rules there, but they could use the proper templates "suggested" at WP:COI

Of course when you declare the paid for articles, we get to check whether they are up to snuff. There are only 5 articles declared (they can't be getting rich off of this!), but IMHO at least 2 should be deleted - the main sources are the companies involved. The prose is a bit flowery, closer to PR speak than to the usual Wikipedia fare. So we see once again why paid editing needs to be reviewed.

The presence of paid editors on chapter boards is AFAIK not against the rules, but probably should be. There's bound to be an actual conflict of interest sooner or later, and there is an appearance of a COI now. I think the board could make this clear - no money from the WMF - if you have paid editors working for commercial organization on the board or in the employ of a chapter. I write "for commercial organizations" because that is where the usual problems are, and to make clear that the usual exemptions apply, e.g. Wikipedians in Residence.

They should also check Swiss law. If it's anything like German law, they have to declare the paid editing *in the article itself* But we can't allow companies to make such a declaration in the article, or to assert the article ownership that would entail, so they wouldn't be able to do any paid editing for Swiss companies in this case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point; could you cite your sources regarding German law requiring paid editors to add a disclaimer in the article itself? --Beat Estermann (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll just copy the relevant section from WP:COI, the German case is in the footnote.

European fair-trading law

See also: Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones is absolutely correct. The reason for declaration of interest is twofold, firstly to protect the declaree from allegations of deceptive practices, and secondly to enable checking for concious or unconscious bias.

The un-resolved issue is that there is a backlog of unchecked contributions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC).

• Well, it's a rare day that Smallbones and I see eye-to-eye on these issues, but I find little to quarrel with in his comment. I run a Wikipedia training and consulting business, and in 2015, I put my name forward as a candidate for the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. (I later withdrew that bid.) In that context, I thought carefully about the issues raised in this news piece. (I answered a relevant question here.) In my particular case, I felt there was no overriding conflict that would prevent me from serving on the Board (though I would have welcomed more pointed questions and deliberation on the matter). But there are two significant differences here (and in the case of Wikimedia UK board members):
  1. My firm explicitly avoids making edits to Wikipedia on behalf of our clients. We do this specifically because we believe any blurring between our reputation on Wikipedia, and that of our client, is inappropriate (whether positive or negative). Instead, we guide our clients in working openly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and social norms. I can see from question #3 that the Swiss board members have made an effort to prevent that kind of blurring, as well; but it strikes me as problematic in their case, because other Wikipedians may have a legitimate interest in knowing that the editor with whom they are engaging is both a paid consultant, and a chapter board member.
  2. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is more distant from content issues than most chapters. Chapters frequently directly sponsor such activities as edit-a-thons, conferences, and outreach to cultural institutions. The Wikimedia Foundation board does none of these things (though such things may happen occasionally within the organization, at a more operational level). But these are among the things a paid consulting firm might do, as well. So there is an additional kind of conflict of interest, beyond the content of the encyclopedia: are these individuals benefiting from information they get as board members, when organizations contact the non-profit chapter seeking help? Such lines can get very blurry as well. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• One other point, on the German ruling: It seems to me (noting, I'm neither a lawyer nor a German) that, as described, the court ruling is based on a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. Two things:
  1. Organizations have many different wishes relating to Wikipedia content. "The aim of influencing customers" is one of many; and sometimes there are multiple aims. Companies also care about (for instance) the value of their brand, the outcomes of lawsuits, public or professional comprehension of their market niche, perceptions of shareholders, prospective investors or partners, the goodwill of the Wikipedia community, etc. etc. I don't know how a German court might determine what the central aim is, but this ruling would seem to ignore vast swathes of the instances where somebody is paid to edit Wikipedia. (This is not a mere theoretical claim; our clients have brought up concerns like those I listed.)
  2. It seems rather straightforward for firms like Racosch Sàrl to add a note to the bottom of a Wikipedia article when saving their edits. Another Wikipedia editor could then remove it. There could even be a bot that automatically reverts such statements, and adds the article to a queue that needs review. I don't know for sure that such an approach would satisfy the court, but it seems like the most straightforward approach from my reading of the ruling. -Pete (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The paid editing company was never common knowledge

I must correct a statement that was attributed to me.

The very existence of this consulting company was never "common knowledge" in Wikimedia Switzerland before April 2nd 2016, the board was never officially informed of it's existence and most of the members found out about the whole issue at the general assembly on April 2nd. People did not have time to properly discuss the issue, the general assembly was running very late and everybody wanted to get the meeting over and go have lunch. News like this takes time to digest. What I wrote about (in French) on April 6th was "common knowledge" because this was a few days after our general assembly...

I must add that I brought up the subject of paid editing in Switzerland during three board meetings in 2015 and 2016, Not once was there mention of a possible COI, and these consulting company partners took part in all the board discussions without even hinting about it.

I am quite disappointed that the editors of this article contacted a few Wikimedia Switzerland board members and allowed them to go over the text, but they did not bother to contact me. I could have set thing straight from the beginning. GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, User:GastelEtzwane. Just to clarify: we published Schutz's comments verbatim, as is proper when reporting on an interview, but WMCH members did not have sight of the remaining text prior to publication. We were working to a tight publication deadline on this piece, which limited our options. If you and/or others have concerns about the matter, we are happy to publish an op-ed, or work with you on a follow-up piece in a future Signpost issue. You're welcome to contact Tony1 and myself by email. Regards, --Andreas JN466 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I must contradict User:GastelEtzwane, the board of Wikimedia CH was aware of the existence of this company at least since the 1st of June 2015, the last board meeting I attend in my quality of Chief Science Officer of Wikimedia CH.--Chandres (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is what is in the minutes, and I arrived 25 minutes after the start of the meeting.

Conflicts of interest

[...] This includes the above disclosure. Stéphane and Frédéric indicate that they have created, together with a third associate, a company active in public relations.

No mention of the name of the company, especially no mention of the focus on "Wikipedia by Wikimedians". I do not spend time digging into my colleague's past or current activities, I did not research the company in detail. Are you saying that I should have? GastelEtzwane (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

About the disclosure of WMCH board members being active in paid editing activities within the Raccosch company

After reading the article and the above, I want to add information. It is not true that the Raccosch contributors announced their activity spontaneously on their user page. During the general meeting, some people expressed the fact that being director of such a chapter while at the same time mounting a company was not acceptable and that it was representing a risk for the Swiss chapter. The interim director expressed publicly the advice that he disagreed with this. I had personally come to this assembly to express concern about the fact that the budget dedicated to small projects and community building activities was not enough in the swiss francophone area, and I expressed concern about the conflict of interest arising from the situation. I was told before by one of the Raccosch protagonist that his activity did not represent a conflict of interest and that in fact a special page dedicated to this issue had been issued (this did not at the time of our discussion which was prior to the 6th of april imply for him the obligation of disclosing his paid contribution activity on his user page. He was opposed to it in fact, and saw absolutely no conflict of interest!). During the general WMCH assembly, I did not have the impression that the local swiss community from the association seemed really opposed to the paid editing activity, and this was a real shock to me personally. I expressed concern to the new director after the general assembly. The Raccosch contributors have been asked by the French community to clearly state their paid contributing activity on their user page, but this happened only after I in fact had asked a confirmed francophone contributor and admin in Paris for his advice, as I was relatively new to the community and was myself leading a local project aimed at reducing the gender gap for which I was paid by the University of Geneva. After expressing my concern about Raccosch to local swiss contributors, I had been told that what I did could be considered as paid editing. As I did not know the exact rules for paid editing I therefore set out to ask for advice and was surprised to see that the matter in Paris (France) was not considered as unproblematic as it was in Lausanne (Switzerland)! The disclosure on the user pages of the Raccosch contributors happened only after the issue was released publicly here on the french Bistrot on the 6th of april, see here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/6_avril_2016. It was disclosed publicly only after the protagonists had been asked to do so in private (for those who would be tempted to think no chance was ever given to them to deal with the issue befre it was made public). Furthermore, the paid contributions posed problems because they were making cross contributions with several accounts on the paid contribution articles, and also intervening on the admissibility of articles, contacting firms which had their subjects rejected by one of them. The articles, among others, concerned a famous Swiss bank (Group Pictet) and multinational active in the pharma industry (Debiopharm).

The subject is taken seriously by the French community (albeit not the Swiss francophone evolving around WMCH) as is shown by this open survey which is currently opened following this discovery: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Sondage/Contributions_rémunérées. 

This poses problems not only in terms of neutrality and scope of the concerned articles. The fact is, when there is such an interaction between corporate and NGO activities, there is a danger of not doing enough community building and distributing budgets according to the visibility they provide to the protagonists (all appearing in the local media as confirmed wikipedians and experts). This does not go hand in hand with the necessity to attract new contributors and do more community building in francophone Switzerland. So I do hope this is going to be evoked during Wikimania, especially for new contributors like me, as there seems to be no clear operational policy. One cannot pretend to be a free and participative movement, while at the same time admitting these shadow paid editing activities. We should be more persistent in tracking paid contributions, and oblige the protagonists to have it disclosed on their user page, or renounce to be called a free encyclopedia. --Nattes à chat (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Nattes à chat. We are happy to run a follow-up piece if there is community interest. Contributions and suggestions are welcome (see my reply to GastelEtzwane above). Best, --Andreas JN466 21:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat: Given this section and the one above, I have to say something about the TOU. See Restrictions de certaines activities, under the heading Contributions rémunérées sans divulgation. This was passed by the WMF board in June 2014, following the largest RfC in history, with overwhelming support (about 80% in favor). It applies on the English Wikipedia, on the French Wikipedia, the German, etc. with 3 minor exceptions (there is a clause that allows projects to revoke this specific section if they follow proper procedure and report the change in the proper place). So the French Wikipedia already has a policy on paid editing, it has to be reported at the same time that it happens. You should check whether the 3 paid editors did so. I don't know how or who enforces policies on WikiFR but they have to enforce the TOU (or stand completely aside). If they don't enforce the TOU please report it to the WMF legal department. You might also check French law on covert advertising. I'd think it would be similar to the German court case, since both are likely based on an EU directive. (But please do not *threaten* legal action - if you think a law has been broken and that reporting it is the best way forward, just report it without threats. That's your business, not Wikipedia's). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear smalltalk, as I am relatively new in the movement, I have basically just reported what happened to people who were more experienced than I was. I would not threaten to have a legal action, I want to believe more in the self regulation capacity of the wikipedian movement. I would like to point out that we are talking about the Swiss chapter, so that French laws do not apply, as this chapter is based in Switzerland. However, the protagonists have now disclosed the information on their pages, so the transparency is there now. What remains is to tackle the issue of detecting future paid editing and having the contributors disclose it on their user page as is required of them, as well as identifying puppet accounts doing cross contributions on one article. As said before, we should also watch how funds and ressources are being used to benefit local and independent projects, as this demonstrates the willingness of a chapter to develop an independent community, and also demonstrates the absence of conflict of interest of board members. I see there are some initiatives taken to have the francophone community meet more regularly and to promote transparency over those meetings, which seems to be a positive outcome (I am also planning to have new contributors from the project Biographies de Femmes Suisses meet regularly too from september on around gender and other gap issues): fr:Wikipédia:Rencontres/Suisse romande#Stammtisch en mai?. I believe in democracy and counter powers: when there is a source of power, it should be counterbalanced by another power acting as a guardian of free knowledge. --Nattes à chat (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• JFTR I just added a bunch of COI templates to articles that were paid-edited on the EN WP. If this is not acceptable, please let me know.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors? (836 bytes · 💬)

• Timbo's Rule No. 5. There are five basic types of participants at Wikipedia: content creators, copy editors, vandal fighters, problem solvers, and people who are just there for the perpetual soap opera. The first four of these groups are useful, the fifth is not. Carrite (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WTH is Timbo? - üser:Altenmann >t 23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO there are six basic types: idealists, graphomaniacs, POV pushers, power addicts, paid editors, and those who don't have real life but hate social networking. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Purple (1,923 bytes · 💬)

Where is Trump? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

At no. 12. The one good thing that came out of Prince's death. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, he was #14 (see Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/April 17 to 23, 2016). The Top 25 chart usually comes out a week before the edition that comes out in the Signpost. In next week's Traffic Report, he'll be #12. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Where is Trump?" Shhh. Don't encourage him!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Surprized that Chyna's article had a higher quality grade than Princes. Would think with hop important Prince was he would have a GA or Featured level article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Bellerophon5685, you had me worried I made a mistake, but, no, Chyna is a "Good" article. The professional wrestling editors are an industrious bunch.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)