Re: clearing backlogs of articles - was "Scope of this mailing list"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: clearing backlogs of articles - was "Scope of this mailing list"

WereSpielChequers-2
Hi Phil,

Re your comment "nobody seems to be committed to clearing backlogs of
articles that actually provide legal, if not journalistic, risk for WP and
its parent".

You might want to have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue

Since Dashbot's run in January 2009 to the authors of unreferenced BLPs,
there has been a 21 month effort by hundreds, perhaps thousands of editors
involving hundreds of wiki projects. As a result our backlog of known
unreferenced BLPs has dropped by over 99% and the only month available to
the "random month of  random unreferenced BLPs" squad is September 2011.

While the Death anomalies project has now been rolled out to 14 different
language versions of Wikipedia, and resolved thousands of anomalies.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Death_anomalies_table

OK one of the things we found fairly early in the unreferenced BLP cleanup
was that these are far from being the highest risk articles in the pedia.
But the initial focus on that backlog was because many thought it was one of
our highest risk areas (and at the time we didn't have many other higher
risk areas  easily identified).

Yes we also have WikiProject Bacon and several other aspects of the pedia
that are less seriously focussed. Some things are as much about motivating
volunteers as anything else. If we hired a bunch of professional editors you
could probably dispense with some of that. But even with ten times the WMF
budget I'm not convinced that we could get as much edited, or as well. The
wonder of barnstars, wikilove, secret pages, userboxen and the like is that
so many volunteers have been motivated to do so much for so little reward.

BTW I was sorry to hear about your problems on EN wiki, I don't know the
details, but hope that in your case indef does not turn out to be permanent.
As far as I'm concerned discussion as to whether we are or are not
successfully improving the pedia are or at least should be well within the
scope of this list. I may not agree with your comment that "nobody seems to
be committed to clearing backlogs of articles" but I'm happy to defend your
right to say it.

TTFN

WereSpielChequers

On 22 September 2011 01:31, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Carcharoth wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Phil Nash <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for
> >> some inexplicable reason".
> >
> > Does this refer to this?
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rodhullandemu&diff=431917947&oldid=431917436
> >
> > I'm not going to comment further, but I think others who respond to
> > your posts should be aware of this.
>
> Actually, you did comment further, and on a personal level; see below. And
> the lack of response in nearly nine hours to your post amply demonstrates,
> to me at least, how you seems to have missed the point.
>
> > What the scope of this mailing list should be (given your recent posts
> > on BLP matters, all copied to Jimmy Wales), is something I'd like to
> > see discussed by the list moderators and those posting here. If there
> > is a reason or rationale behind the posts, attempting to demonstrate
> > something, then fine, but it would be courteous to state that rather
> > then just post randomly like this.
>
> Starting at the back, and working forward, my posts are not random. They
> are
> carefully selected examples based on my experience as (currently) a reader
> of Wikipedia and my responses to what I found. I take it as obvious that if
> I can read these articles, so can their subjects, and if they don't like
> what they see, making appropriate noises, or (in extreme cases) litigating
> against the Foundation.
>
> We have BLP policies for that reason, and while I see editors on Wikipedia
> competing to provide articles about bacon(!), fiddling about with templates
> that are ostensibly fit for purpose as they are[1], and still arguing about
> trivial issues, nobody seems to be committed to clearing backlogs of
> articles that actually provide legal, if not journalistic, risk for WP and
> its parent. And there are myriad similar examples.
>
> My personal reasons are less important than making sure that this project
> does, and can, continue without unnecessary diversions into legalities-
> perhaps I've been spending too much time reading up Commons policies of
> late, one of which (to paraphrase) says that "just because nobody will
> notice a copyright violation is no reason to ignore policy"- and so it
> should be with any policy on any WMF project that may have consequences for
> the Foundation. I am available to discuss any non-apparent personal
> motivations PRIVATELY by email rather than on a public list. But don't
> assume that I don't have our project's viability at heart.
>
> As a lawyer by training, qualifications, experience, and observation, I've
> seen many operations thought to be acting blithely within the law crumble
> to
> the ground when the courts have upheld unexpected, but valid challenges.
> I'm
> not suggesting this is likely in our case; but neither is it beyond the
> bounds of possibility, and at least if I bring risks to the attention of
> others, my hands are clean.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> [1] and consuming unnecessary resources in TfDs
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l