[Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
Dear all,
The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk
and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try and
abstract some more general points for discussion.

The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It would
not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.  But
in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of the
various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.

It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What the
experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
project founded on crowd-sourcing.

Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that compares
itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of the
risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright violations:
again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
itself.

This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
"encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This creates
an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the major
violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct policy
makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and existing
community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.

These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and is
the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members of
the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and have
most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.  But
the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
inevitably continue to do so.

Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?

Thrapostibongles
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business
as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual suspects.

What I have noticed is that there has been no room for real arguments,
arguments where points of view are floated and considered for their merits.
So what does it take for people to consider the merits of proposals without
immediately reverting to "but that is not how I/we do things"?

Important when you want to consider points of view is the way in which we
converse. There is a huge difference between calling a point of view
bullshit and calling the person a bullshit artist. Even so, calling a POV
bullshit is acceptable when arguments are provided WHY you consider
something bullshit.

Technically many things have progressed to a point where Wikipedia could
take them seriously. This does not happen even when it is all too obvious
how our public would benefit. As our intention is to share in the sum of
all knowledge, we do not need to have it all available, we can point to
partners eg Open Library where publications are available written by the
subject of an article. We do have the data in Wikidata and we could
experiment by including Open Library in the {{authority control}}. Many
more practical opportunities exist where Wikipedia would objectively
benefit from a different modus operandi.

Given that as always, there are those who insist that Wikipedia has failed
let us prove them wrong. Let's consider what is needed to make Wikipedia
innovative again, what it takes for our community to be considered as not
toxic. We can and, as a community we will benefit but as important
Wikipedia, the project we all care for will turn a page.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 14:18, Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
> The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
> the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk
> and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try and
> abstract some more general points for discussion.
>
> The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It would
> not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.  But
> in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of the
> various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
>
> It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
> practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What the
> experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
> as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> project founded on crowd-sourcing.
>
> Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that compares
> itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
> has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
> Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of the
> risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright violations:
> again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
> mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
> itself.
>
> This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This creates
> an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
> but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the major
> violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct policy
> makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
> volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
> when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
> it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and existing
> community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
>
> These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
> organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and is
> the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
> so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members of
> the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and have
> most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.  But
> the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> inevitably continue to do so.
>
> Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure.



On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
> The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
> the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk
> and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try and
> abstract some more general points for discussion.
>
> The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It would
> not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.  But
> in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of the
> various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
>
> It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
> practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What the
> experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
> as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> project founded on crowd-sourcing.
>
> Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that compares
> itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
> has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
> Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of the
> risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright violations:
> again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
> mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
> itself.
>
> This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This creates
> an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
> but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the major
> violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct policy
> makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
> volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
> when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
> it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and existing
> community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
>
> These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
> organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and is
> the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
> so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members of
> the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and have
> most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.  But
> the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> inevitably continue to do so.
>
> Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
I think it's a good question.

The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has
been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do
that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the
community that this will not happen again, at least not until a solution
workable to all sides can be arrived at. (And while I shouldn't have to say
it--honor that.) If the WMF carries on the way that it is now, that loss of
trust may become irreparable. In 2006-2007, when the WMF was starting to
expand its role, some community members expressed a fear of this very type
of situation, that the WMF would consider itself "in charge" of the
project. They were, of course, ensured that, no, WMF's just here to handle
the clerical stuff and keep the servers ticking along, that'd never happen.
Some of us were around long enough to remember when those things were said,
and that makes it feel, not just like a power grab, but like a betrayal.
Don't say one thing and do something else.

From there, if you think there's a problem with the English Wikipedia,
discuss it with the community there. Not in carefully parsed and polished
corporatese, but in frank, direct language. If you think something's wrong,
say so. Be aware that "I want to see your source for that" is almost
second-nature on the project, as well it should be. Come prepared. If you
just kind of have a hazy guess based on a couple anecdotes, that's not
going to fly. (Note that this means a widely publicized discussion on ENWP.
NOT meta.)

From there, don't approach with the attitude of "Now, here is the solution
that we will be imposing." Instead, have an attitude of "What can we do to
fix this and make things work better?". Whatever "it" may be. If it's like
the points in the earlier email, that there are copyright violations, well,
the community doesn't want those either. If it's poor sourcing, we don't
want that. Errors? Don't want 'em. So, if those problems exist, of course
we'll want to fix them too. You will not get an argument over those
principles.

Once there actually is a consensus on a fix, then it can be proceeded with.
There, the software fiascos are instructive. The first time around on them,
WMF tried to use a "cram it down your throat" approach, with the
predictable results since the software was not yet fit for purpose. After
they withdrew it and fixed it, they came back and asked "Does this look
alright to you now?". The result was overwhelming support to go forward
with the deployments. Even those few people who still vehemently didn't
want them didn't try to start a fight against it, or disable it by editing
the MediaWiki namespace, because the community had come to a consensus on
the matter and they weren't going to defy that.

Basically, you cannot start shoving someone and then be amazed and
surprised when they fight back. Talk instead. It is utterly stupid and
counterproductive for the community and WMF to be in a fight. That should
absolutely never happen, and this situation was entirely preventable. But
the WMF must very clearly understand that the English Wikipedia community,
at least (and I suspect many others as well) will not willingly give up
their editorial independence to the Foundation. That portion, I'm afraid,
is never going to be negotiable. But without doing that, I think the
community and the WMF can collaborate to solve problems, if and only if
that relationship can be one based upon trust. But the community didn't
swing first on this one, and the Foundation has absolutely got to stop
picking these fights if it wants any credibility at all. You do not get
someone to trust you by trying to force them to do something they don't
want to.

Todd

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:21 AM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business
> as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
> know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
> steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual suspects.
>
> What I have noticed is that there has been no room for real arguments,
> arguments where points of view are floated and considered for their merits.
> So what does it take for people to consider the merits of proposals without
> immediately reverting to "but that is not how I/we do things"?
>
> Important when you want to consider points of view is the way in which we
> converse. There is a huge difference between calling a point of view
> bullshit and calling the person a bullshit artist. Even so, calling a POV
> bullshit is acceptable when arguments are provided WHY you consider
> something bullshit.
>
> Technically many things have progressed to a point where Wikipedia could
> take them seriously. This does not happen even when it is all too obvious
> how our public would benefit. As our intention is to share in the sum of
> all knowledge, we do not need to have it all available, we can point to
> partners eg Open Library where publications are available written by the
> subject of an article. We do have the data in Wikidata and we could
> experiment by including Open Library in the {{authority control}}. Many
> more practical opportunities exist where Wikipedia would objectively
> benefit from a different modus operandi.
>
> Given that as always, there are those who insist that Wikipedia has failed
> let us prove them wrong. Let's consider what is needed to make Wikipedia
> innovative again, what it takes for our community to be considered as not
> toxic. We can and, as a community we will benefit but as important
> Wikipedia, the project we all care for will turn a page.
> Thanks,
>         GerardM
>
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 14:18, Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
> > the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> > pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t
> talk
> > and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try
> and
> > abstract some more general points for discussion.
> >
> > The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> > Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> > structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It
> would
> > not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.
> But
> > in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> > Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of
> the
> > various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
> >
> > It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works
> in
> > practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What
> the
> > experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
> > as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> > aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> > project founded on crowd-sourcing.
> >
> > Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> > failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> > and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> > bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that
> compares
> > itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
> > has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> > references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> > there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
> > Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of
> the
> > risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> > There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright
> violations:
> > again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
> > mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
> > itself.
> >
> > This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> > "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> > hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> > informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This
> creates
> > an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
> > but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the
> major
> > violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct
> policy
> > makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> > witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> > copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
> > volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> > requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> > mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
> > when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
> > it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and
> existing
> > community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
> >
> > These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
> > organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> > outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and is
> > the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
> > so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members
> of
> > the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and
> have
> > most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.  But
> > the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> > inevitably continue to do so.
> >
> > Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
There is a picture of Jimmy Wales giving a talk at a Wikimania explicitly
talking about the situation that is here being considered. A person can be
a wonderful editor and a toxic personality. What is happening is not new,
it is coming to a head. When you, the English Wikipedia "community" has not
seen this coming, where have you been.

Personally I have lost faith in the English "community" for its insistence
on independence and thinking that it is the same as their way of doing
things. It sucks, it is largely a power play where the incumbents fight of
anything new, different because they consider themselves to be the
"community". Yes they may be but it is not the best for us. Get a grip,
consider this and do not think for a moment that it is not on you to allow
for the difference.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 17:09, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it's a good question.
>
> The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has
> been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do
> that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the
> community that this will not happen again, at least not until a solution
> workable to all sides can be arrived at. (And while I shouldn't have to say
> it--honor that.) If the WMF carries on the way that it is now, that loss of
> trust may become irreparable. In 2006-2007, when the WMF was starting to
> expand its role, some community members expressed a fear of this very type
> of situation, that the WMF would consider itself "in charge" of the
> project. They were, of course, ensured that, no, WMF's just here to handle
> the clerical stuff and keep the servers ticking along, that'd never happen.
> Some of us were around long enough to remember when those things were said,
> and that makes it feel, not just like a power grab, but like a betrayal.
> Don't say one thing and do something else.
>
> From there, if you think there's a problem with the English Wikipedia,
> discuss it with the community there. Not in carefully parsed and polished
> corporatese, but in frank, direct language. If you think something's wrong,
> say so. Be aware that "I want to see your source for that" is almost
> second-nature on the project, as well it should be. Come prepared. If you
> just kind of have a hazy guess based on a couple anecdotes, that's not
> going to fly. (Note that this means a widely publicized discussion on ENWP.
> NOT meta.)
>
> From there, don't approach with the attitude of "Now, here is the solution
> that we will be imposing." Instead, have an attitude of "What can we do to
> fix this and make things work better?". Whatever "it" may be. If it's like
> the points in the earlier email, that there are copyright violations, well,
> the community doesn't want those either. If it's poor sourcing, we don't
> want that. Errors? Don't want 'em. So, if those problems exist, of course
> we'll want to fix them too. You will not get an argument over those
> principles.
>
> Once there actually is a consensus on a fix, then it can be proceeded with.
> There, the software fiascos are instructive. The first time around on them,
> WMF tried to use a "cram it down your throat" approach, with the
> predictable results since the software was not yet fit for purpose. After
> they withdrew it and fixed it, they came back and asked "Does this look
> alright to you now?". The result was overwhelming support to go forward
> with the deployments. Even those few people who still vehemently didn't
> want them didn't try to start a fight against it, or disable it by editing
> the MediaWiki namespace, because the community had come to a consensus on
> the matter and they weren't going to defy that.
>
> Basically, you cannot start shoving someone and then be amazed and
> surprised when they fight back. Talk instead. It is utterly stupid and
> counterproductive for the community and WMF to be in a fight. That should
> absolutely never happen, and this situation was entirely preventable. But
> the WMF must very clearly understand that the English Wikipedia community,
> at least (and I suspect many others as well) will not willingly give up
> their editorial independence to the Foundation. That portion, I'm afraid,
> is never going to be negotiable. But without doing that, I think the
> community and the WMF can collaborate to solve problems, if and only if
> that relationship can be one based upon trust. But the community didn't
> swing first on this one, and the Foundation has absolutely got to stop
> picking these fights if it wants any credibility at all. You do not get
> someone to trust you by trying to force them to do something they don't
> want to.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:21 AM Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia
> "business
> > as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
> > know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
> > steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual
> suspects.
> >
> > What I have noticed is that there has been no room for real arguments,
> > arguments where points of view are floated and considered for their
> merits.
> > So what does it take for people to consider the merits of proposals
> without
> > immediately reverting to "but that is not how I/we do things"?
> >
> > Important when you want to consider points of view is the way in which we
> > converse. There is a huge difference between calling a point of view
> > bullshit and calling the person a bullshit artist. Even so, calling a POV
> > bullshit is acceptable when arguments are provided WHY you consider
> > something bullshit.
> >
> > Technically many things have progressed to a point where Wikipedia could
> > take them seriously. This does not happen even when it is all too obvious
> > how our public would benefit. As our intention is to share in the sum of
> > all knowledge, we do not need to have it all available, we can point to
> > partners eg Open Library where publications are available written by the
> > subject of an article. We do have the data in Wikidata and we could
> > experiment by including Open Library in the {{authority control}}. Many
> > more practical opportunities exist where Wikipedia would objectively
> > benefit from a different modus operandi.
> >
> > Given that as always, there are those who insist that Wikipedia has
> failed
> > let us prove them wrong. Let's consider what is needed to make Wikipedia
> > innovative again, what it takes for our community to be considered as not
> > toxic. We can and, as a community we will benefit but as important
> > Wikipedia, the project we all care for will turn a page.
> > Thanks,
> >         GerardM
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 14:18, Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus
> on
> > > the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> > > pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t
> > talk
> > > and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try
> > and
> > > abstract some more general points for discussion.
> > >
> > > The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> > > Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> > > structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It
> > would
> > > not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.
> > But
> > > in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> > > Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of
> > the
> > > various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
> > >
> > > It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works
> > in
> > > practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What
> > the
> > > experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct --
> Wikipedia,
> > > as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> > > aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> > > project founded on crowd-sourcing.
> > >
> > > Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> > > failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable
> sources,
> > > and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> > > bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that
> > compares
> > > itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation
> research
> > > has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> > > references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> > > there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger
> Wikpedias.
> > > Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of
> > the
> > > risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> > > There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright
> > violations:
> > > again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not",
> I
> > > mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer
> community
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> > > "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> > > hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> > > informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This
> > creates
> > > an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it
> all
> > > but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the
> > major
> > > violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct
> > policy
> > > makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> > > witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> > > copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by
> a
> > > volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> > > requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> > > mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked
> either
> > > when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that
> makes
> > > it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and
> > existing
> > > community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
> > >
> > > These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree
> of
> > > organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> > > outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and
> is
> > > the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to
> do
> > > so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous
> members
> > of
> > > the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and
> > have
> > > most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.
> But
> > > the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> > > inevitably continue to do so.
> > >
> > > Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Vi to
In reply to this post by Martijn Hoekstra
Honestly I cannot imagine a functional Wikipedia citing itself.
Such Wikipedia would be so easy to trick.

Vito

Il giorno dom 16 giu 2019 alle ore 16:54 Martijn Hoekstra <
[hidden email]> ha scritto:

> I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
> is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus on
> > the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> > pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t
> talk
> > and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try
> and
> > abstract some more general points for discussion.
> >
> > The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> > Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> > structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It
> would
> > not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.
> But
> > in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> > Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of
> the
> > various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
> >
> > It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works
> in
> > practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What
> the
> > experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct -- Wikipedia,
> > as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> > aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> > project founded on crowd-sourcing.
> >
> > Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> > failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> > and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> > bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that
> compares
> > itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
> > has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> > references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> > there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
> > Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of
> the
> > risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> > There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright
> violations:
> > again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
> > mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
> > itself.
> >
> > This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> > "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> > hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> > informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This
> creates
> > an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it all
> > but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the
> major
> > violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct
> policy
> > makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> > witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> > copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by a
> > volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> > requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> > mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked either
> > when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that makes
> > it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and
> existing
> > community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
> >
> > These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree of
> > organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> > outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and is
> > the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to do
> > so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous members
> of
> > the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and
> have
> > most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.  But
> > the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> > inevitably continue to do so.
> >
> > Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Benjamin Lees
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:18 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources,
> and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that compares
> itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation research
> has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger Wikpedias.
> Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of the
> risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright violations:
> again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not", I
> mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer community
> itself.
>

The WMF has multiple, conflicting goals, just like the community.  I don't
think you should take it as a given that the WMF will take a position that
aligns perfectly with what you want.  In terms of unverified articles,
consider ACTRIAL.[1]  The community approved it in in 2011, but the WMF
vetoed it for 6 years.  Eventually, the trial was allowed to proceed; most
of the feared negative effects did not materialize, and the WMF made the
change permanent in response to overwhelming community support for it.

The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
time.[2]  There are probably ways the WMF could support improvements in
this area.  Maybe the WMF could even design some system that would
magically solve the problem.  But it's certainly not the community standing
in the way.

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Resources
Also consider
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-November/128777.html
back in 2013.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
In reply to this post by Vi to
Vito

This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most important)
pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely that
it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may
be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on one
of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.  And a
reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies and
mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that being an
editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant synonym
for contributor).

Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and processes
that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like the
encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it would
be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be to
"trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes in
place!

Thrapostibongles

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM Vi to <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Honestly I cannot imagine a functional Wikipedia citing itself.
> Such Wikipedia would be so easy to trick.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 16 giu 2019 alle ore 16:54 Martijn Hoekstra <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> > I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible
> source
> > is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus
> on
> > > the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
> > > pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t
> > talk
> > > and those who talk don't know).  So I though it might be helpful to try
> > and
> > > abstract some more general points for discussion.
> > >
> > > The long-term future of the Community, and the relationship between the
> > > Foundation and its volunteers is under discussion in an elaborately
> > > structured consultation announced already here in September 2017.  It
> > would
> > > not be particularly helpful to try to run a parallel discussion here.
> > But
> > > in the short to medium term, it seems that it will be necessary for the
> > > Foundation to take a different stance with respect to the management of
> > the
> > > various projects, and the English Wikipedia in particular.
> > >
> > > It is often said that "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works
> > in
> > > practice. In theory, it can never work."  Well, that's half true.  What
> > the
> > > experiment has proved is that the theory was indeed correct --
> Wikipedia,
> > > as currently constituted, does not work.  There are two inter-related
> > > aspects to its failure: content and conduct, inextricably related in a
> > > project founded on crowd-sourcing.
> > >
> > > Let's look at the content first.  Even on Wikipedia's own terms, it has
> > > failed.  It is a principle that Wikipedia is founded on reliable
> sources,
> > > and by its own admission, Wikipedia itself is not such a source.  That
> > > bears repetition -- a project aiming to be an encyclopaedia, that
> > compares
> > > itself with Britannica, explicitly is not reliable.  Foundation
> research
> > > has shown that about one fifth of Wikipedia articles are supported  by
> > > references that are inadequate to support the text or simply are not
> > > there.  That's about a million articles each on of the larger
> Wikpedias.
> > > Some thousands of those are biographies of living people and in view of
> > the
> > > risk of defamation, no such articles should exist on Wikipedia at all.
> > > There are several thousand articles that are possible copyright
> > violations:
> > > again such articles should not be there.  And when I say "should not",
> I
> > > mean according to the rules adopted by the Wikipedia volunteer
> community
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > This links to the conduct aspects.  The self-organising policies of the
> > > "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" have flattened out the formal
> > > hierarchy to the extent that it has been replaced, necessarily, by an
> > > informal but strong hierarchy based on a reputation econiomy.  This
> > creates
> > > an unpleasant and hence ineffective working environment, and makes it
> all
> > > but impossible to organise a volunteer workforce into coping with the
> > major
> > > violations of content policy alreay mentioned.  Indeed, the conduct
> > policy
> > > makes it all but impossible to effectively handle cases of major abuse,
> > > witting ot uwitting.  For example, one reason for the failure to manage
> > > copyright violations is that some thousand of articles were written by
> a
> > > volunteer who was unable or unwilling to comply with the copyright
> > > requirements applicable to their contributions   There is simply no
> > > mechanism that allows for contributions to be effectively checked
> either
> > > when contributed or subsequently, bcause there is no mechanism that
> makes
> > > it possible to manage or organise the work of the volunteers, and
> > existing
> > > community norms will not accept such a degree of organisation.
> > >
> > > These mutually reinforcing failures make to necessary for some degree
> of
> > > organisation and management of content and conduct to be imposed from
> > > outside the volunteer community.  The Foundation has the resources and
> is
> > > the only entity that can acquire and deploy the expertise required to
> do
> > > so.  No doubt this is unpalatable to some of the more vociferous
> members
> > of
> > > the community -- those who stand highest in the reputation economy and
> > have
> > > most to lose by it being replaced by an effective management policy.
> But
> > > the fact remains -- Wikipedia is failing, and in its present form will
> > > inevitably continue to do so.
> > >
> > > Foundation or failure -- which is it to be?
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Leila Zia
In reply to this post by Benjamin Lees
Hi Benjamin,

My name is Leila and I'm in the Research team in Wikimedia Foundation.
Please see below.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:59 AM Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
> time.[2]  There are probably ways the WMF could support improvements in
> this area.  Maybe the WMF could even design some system that would
> magically solve the problem.  But it's certainly not the community standing
> in the way.

While I understand that you brought this up as one example within a
broader context and set of challenges, now that you have brought it
up, I'd like to ask you for a specific guidance. Can you help me
understand, in your view, what are some of the most pressing issues on
this front from the perspective of those who work to detect and
address copyright violations? (Not knowing a lot about this space, my
first thought is to have better algorithms to detect copyright
violations in Wikipedia (?) text (?) across many languages. Is this
the most pressing issue?)

Some more info about how we work at the end of this email.[4]

Best,
Leila

> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Resources
> Also consider
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-November/128777.html
> back in 2013.
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
[4]
To give you some more information about the context I operate in:

* Part of the work of our team is to listen to community conversations
in lists such as wikimedia-l to find research questions/directions to
work on. If we can understand the problem space clearly and define
research questions bsaed on, we can work on priorities with the
corresponding communities and start the research on these questions
ourselves or through our Formal Collaborations program [3].

* The types of problems that we can work (relatively) more quickly on
are those for which the output can be an API, data-set, or knowledge.

* We won't start the research based on hearing the most pressing
issues from you. If we see that based on your response there is a
promising direction for further research, we will follow up (with the
corresponding parts of the community involved in this space) to learn
more about the general and specific problems.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Mister Thrapostibongles
Leila

Since I raised this particular issue,, I'll take the liberty of giving an
answer to this question, even though you addressed it to Benjamin.  The
failure that I was pointing to was not the failure to identify copyright
violations, but the failure to address the huge backlog of probable
infringements identified at, for example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20111108
where
there is a backlog of *thousands* of articles created by *one* user.  In
the absence of any coordinated management of the workload, at the current
rate of progress it will take about another decade to clear this single
case.  My analysis is that the pressing issue here is precisely that there
is no-one for whom this is a pressing issue: no-one is responsible for
clearing up the mess, and if there were, there are no resources available
to be allocated to it, and if there were, there is no way of deciding where
to allocate those resources.

Thrapostibongles

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:24 PM Leila Zia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,
>
> My name is Leila and I'm in the Research team in Wikimedia Foundation.
> Please see below.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:59 AM Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
> > time.[2]  There are probably ways the WMF could support improvements in
> > this area.  Maybe the WMF could even design some system that would
> > magically solve the problem.  But it's certainly not the community
> standing
> > in the way.
>
> While I understand that you brought this up as one example within a
> broader context and set of challenges, now that you have brought it
> up, I'd like to ask you for a specific guidance. Can you help me
> understand, in your view, what are some of the most pressing issues on
> this front from the perspective of those who work to detect and
> address copyright violations? (Not knowing a lot about this space, my
> first thought is to have better algorithms to detect copyright
> violations in Wikipedia (?) text (?) across many languages. Is this
> the most pressing issue?)
>
> Some more info about how we work at the end of this email.[4]
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > [1]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial
> > [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Resources
> > Also consider
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-November/128777.html
> > back in 2013.
> [3]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> [4]
> To give you some more information about the context I operate in:
>
> * Part of the work of our team is to listen to community conversations
> in lists such as wikimedia-l to find research questions/directions to
> work on. If we can understand the problem space clearly and define
> research questions bsaed on, we can work on priorities with the
> corresponding communities and start the research on these questions
> ourselves or through our Formal Collaborations program [3].
>
> * The types of problems that we can work (relatively) more quickly on
> are those for which the output can be an API, data-set, or knowledge.
>
> * We won't start the research based on hearing the most pressing
> issues from you. If we see that based on your response there is a
> promising direction for further research, we will follow up (with the
> corresponding parts of the community involved in this space) to learn
> more about the general and specific problems.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
"One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in
a failed state is precisely that
it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable source
"

You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
for contributors and would-be contributors.

It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set of
points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB articles
as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Vito
>
> This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most important)
> pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely that
> it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may
> be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on one
> of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.  And a
> reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies and
> mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that being an
> editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant synonym
> for contributor).
>
> Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and processes
> that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like the
> encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it would
> be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be to
> "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes in
> place!
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
>
>

--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Leila Zia
Hi,

It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
for searching images,
so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
for automated search).
That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
years.
And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.

Regards,
Yann

Le lun. 17 juin 2019 à 17:54, Leila Zia <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Hi Benjamin,
>
> My name is Leila and I'm in the Research team in Wikimedia Foundation.
> Please see below.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:59 AM Benjamin Lees <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The community has been working on copyright violation issues for a long
> > time.[2]  There are probably ways the WMF could support improvements in
> > this area.  Maybe the WMF could even design some system that would
> > magically solve the problem.  But it's certainly not the community
> standing
> > in the way.
>
> While I understand that you brought this up as one example within a
> broader context and set of challenges, now that you have brought it
> up, I'd like to ask you for a specific guidance. Can you help me
> understand, in your view, what are some of the most pressing issues on
> this front from the perspective of those who work to detect and
> address copyright violations? (Not knowing a lot about this space, my
> first thought is to have better algorithms to detect copyright
> violations in Wikipedia (?) text (?) across many languages. Is this
> the most pressing issue?)
>
> Some more info about how we work at the end of this email.[4]
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> > [1]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial
> > [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Resources
> > Also consider
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-November/128777.html
> > back in 2013.
> [3]
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Formal_collaborations
> [4]
> To give you some more information about the context I operate in:
>
> * Part of the work of our team is to listen to community conversations
> in lists such as wikimedia-l to find research questions/directions to
> work on. If we can understand the problem space clearly and define
> research questions bsaed on, we can work on priorities with the
> corresponding communities and start the research on these questions
> ourselves or through our Formal Collaborations program [3].
>
> * The types of problems that we can work (relatively) more quickly on
> are those for which the output can be an API, data-set, or knowledge.
>
> * We won't start the research based on hearing the most pressing
> issues from you. If we see that based on your response there is a
> promising direction for further research, we will follow up (with the
> corresponding parts of the community involved in this space) to learn
> more about the general and specific problems.
>

--
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

James Forrester-4
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
> for searching images,
> so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
> for automated search).
> That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
> years.
> And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
>

Yann,

As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that they
wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we found
at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve building
a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at the
time, I'm pretty sure.

Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems unlikely. I
imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list, so
it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked directly.

J.
--
*James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
<http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
In reply to this post by Dennis During
Dennis,

I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state of
failure with respect to its own mission.

One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
provide a collegial working atmosphere.

Thrapostibongles



On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in
> a failed state is precisely that
> it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable source
> "
>
> You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
> for contributors and would-be contributors.
>
> It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set of
> points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB articles
> as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Vito
> >
> > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most important)
> > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> that
> > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may
> > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on
> one
> > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.  And a
> > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies and
> > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that being
> an
> > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> synonym
> > for contributor).
> >
> > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and processes
> > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like the
> > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> would
> > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be to
> > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes in
> > place!
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by James Forrester-4
Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision API:

https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection

The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per month:

https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing

Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":

https://cloud.google.com/contact/


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
> > for searching images,
> > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
> > for automated search).
> > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
> > years.
> > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> >
>
> Yann,
>
> As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
> such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that they
> wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we found
> at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
> discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
> to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve building
> a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at the
> time, I'm pretty sure.
>
> Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems unlikely. I
> imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list, so
> it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked directly.
>
> J.
> --
> *James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
> <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
It might be a good thread were it based on a better line of argument.

You are making too much of an artifact of the drafting of a Wikipedia
policy.  The intent was clearly to prevent 1., bootstrapping, ie, writing
an article and using it as a 'reliable source' for another article, and 2.,
reliance on content of a wiki article which is subject to change.  There
might also have been other ways to manipulate the software and policies to
the detriment of the project.

The main thrust of the policy was to compel the use of reliable sources.
Rather than make a policy specific to WP or other project wikis, it was
much simpler to simply declare that WP was not a reliable source.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:55 PM Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
> Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state of
> failure with respect to its own mission.
>
> One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> provide a collegial working atmosphere.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being
> in
> > a failed state is precisely that
> > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> source
> > "
> >
> > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
> > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> >
> > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> of
> > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> articles
> > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> important)
> > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > that
> > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> may
> > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on
> > one
> > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> And a
> > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> and
> > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> being
> > an
> > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > synonym
> > > for contributor).
> > >
> > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> processes
> > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> the
> > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > would
> > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be
> to
> > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> in
> > > place!
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
quality would quickly drop.

That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list,
or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
are reasonable in the first place.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own criteria,
> Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state of
> failure with respect to its own mission.
>
> One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> provide a collegial working atmosphere.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being
> in
> > a failed state is precisely that
> > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> source
> > "
> >
> > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe" environment
> > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> >
> > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> of
> > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> articles
> > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> important)
> > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > that
> > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> may
> > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia on
> > one
> > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> And a
> > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> and
> > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> being
> > an
> > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > synonym
> > > for contributor).
> > >
> > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> processes
> > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> the
> > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > would
> > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must be
> to
> > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> in
> > > place!
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis C. During
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Effe iets anders
In reply to this post by James Forrester-4
The landscape has changed quite a bit since 2012, and there are a number of
players that could offer a service like this by now. It may be worthwhile
exploring them briefly (including but not limited to Google), if we believe
this is important enough to invest time in (and I agree that there is a
number of use cases from the community point of view at least).

Lodewijk

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:24 AM James Forrester <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their API
> > for searching images,
> > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free access
> > for automated search).
> > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow for
> > years.
> > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> >
>
> Yann,
>
> As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
> such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that they
> wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we found
> at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
> discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
> to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve building
> a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at the
> time, I'm pretty sure.
>
> Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems unlikely. I
> imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list, so
> it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> directly.
>
> J.
> --
> *James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
> <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Mister Thrapostibongles
In reply to this post by Martijn Hoekstra
Martin, Dennis

The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
articles.  This is not in accord with the facts.  As I pointed out, and as
Foundation research has shown, millions -- literally millions, and when I
say "literally" I literally mean "literally" -- of articles, about one in
five, are not founded on reliable sources, and some thousands of those,
being biographies of living people, should have been instantly deleted.  So
we cannot rely on any of those millions of articles, by your own
reasoning.  The reason why Wikipedia deems itself unreliable is that it is
an open wiki, and all such sources are forbidden, because anyone can write
anything on them: "Content from websites whose content is largely
user-generated
is also generally unacceptable."  Wikipedia is cited in the policy as
merely another example of such unreliable sources.

The way forward, however unpalatable this may be to people who would like
to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in
the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow
management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make
Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is not currently, namely an encyclopaedia.

Thrapostibongles

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If
> it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its
> quality would quickly drop.
>
> That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore
> failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I dont know whether you
> seriously think this, in which case we should probably take this off list,
> or that you're engaging in sophistry and using arguments you don't think
> are reasonable in the first place.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 19:56 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Dennis,
> >
> > I started this thread to discuss both conduct and content policies on
> > Wikipedia, and indeed how the two interact.  Wikipedia is a project to
> > build an encyclopaedia.  By its own criteria, encyclopaedias are reliable
> > sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source; hence by its own
> criteria,
> > Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia.  That is, it is currently in a state
> of
> > failure with respect to its own mission.
> >
> > One of the reasons for that state of failure is indeed the failure to
> > provide a collegial working atmosphere.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dennis During <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > "One (and not the most important) pieces of evidence for Wikipedia
> being
> > in
> > > a failed state is precisely that
> > > it does not, by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > source
> > > "
> > >
> > > You have made this argument more than once. That might be a piece of
> > > evidence seems both wrong and not relevant to the sense in which people
> > > here as saying WP has failed, which is as a welcoming, "safe"
> environment
> > > for contributors and would-be contributors.
> > >
> > > It is good policy to make sure that contributors reach out to other
> > > sources, even when one believes that Wikipedia is as reliable as the
> > > average tertiary source we allow as a reference. It prevents us from
> > > relying exclusively on what can easily turn out to be a very narrow set
> > of
> > > points of view.  Does/did the Encyclopedia Britanica cite other EB
> > articles
> > > as references rather than include them as "see alsos"?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:27 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > This rather tends to support my point.  One (and not the most
> > important)
> > > > pieces of evidence for Wikipedia being in a failed state is precisely
> > > that
> > > > it does not , by the community's own admission, constitute a reliable
> > > > source:whereas "Reputable tertiary sources
> > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TERTIARY>, such as
> > > > introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias,
> > may
> > > > be cited".  So Wikipedia fails in its aim of being an encyclopaedia
> on
> > > one
> > > > of the most important tests one could imagine, namely reliability.
> > And a
> > > > reason for that is its lack of effective content management policies
> > and
> > > > mechanisms to put them into effect (in the old days we called that
> > being
> > > an
> > > > editor, but that word on Wikipedia now is more or less a redundant
> > > synonym
> > > > for contributor).
> > > >
> > > > Now suppose that Wikipedia had effective editorial policies and
> > processes
> > > > that allowed it to assume the status of a reliable source, just like
> > the
> > > > encyclopaedia it aims to be.  You say that even in that situation, it
> > > would
> > > > be easy to manipulate.  On that assumption, how much easier it must
> be
> > to
> > > > "trick" it today when it has no such effective policies and processes
> > in
> > > > place!
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dennis C. During
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright workflows - research (Was: Re: Foundation management of volunteers)

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by James Salsman-2
Hi,

Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the suspicious
ones (small images without EXIF data).
If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost $7 a
day, so $210 a month.

Regards,
Yann


Le mar. 18 juin 2019 à 01:11, James Salsman <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Google has been offering reverse image search as part of their vision API:
>
> https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/internet-detection
>
> The pricing is $3.50 per 1,000 queries for up to 5,000,000 queries per
> month:
>
> https://cloud.google.com/vision/pricing
>
> Above that quantity "Contact Google for more information":
>
> https://cloud.google.com/contact/
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:23 AM James Forrester
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > It has been suggested many times to ask Google for an access to their
> API
> > > for searching images,
> > > so that we could have a bot tagging copyright violations (no free
> access
> > > for automated search).
> > > That would the single best improvement in Wikimedia Commons workflow
> for
> > > years.
> > > And it would benefit all Wikipedia projects, big or small.
> > >
> >
> > Yann,
> >
> > As you should remember, we asked Google for API access to their reverse
> > image search system, years ago (maybe 2013?). They said that there isn't
> > such an API any more (they killed it off in ~2012, I think), and that
> they
> > wouldn't make a custom one for us. The only commercial alternative we
> found
> > at the time would have cost us approximately US$3m a month at upload
> > frequency for Commons then, and when contacted said they wouldn't do any
> > discounts for Wikimedia. Obviously, this is far too much for the
> > Foundation's budget (it would be even more now), and an inappropriate way
> > to spend donor funds. Providing the service in-house would involve
> building
> > a search index of the entire Internet's (generally non-free) images and
> > media, which would cost a fortune and is totally incompatible with the
> > mission of the movement. This was relayed out to Commons volunteers at
> the
> > time, I'm pretty sure.
> >
> > Obviously Google might have changed their mind, though it seems
> unlikely. I
> > imagine that Google engineers and product owners don't follow this list,
> so
> > it's unlikely that they will re-create the API without being asked
> directly.
> >
> > J.
> > --
> > *James D. Forrester* (he/him <http://pronoun.is/he> or they/themself
> > <http://pronoun.is/they/.../themself>)
> > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordination Team
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12