Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-09-24

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-09-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Dead as... (724 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

• That bismuth crystal looks really neat. Sumana Harihareswara 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've had the pleasure of dealing with Schrodinger's cat is alive when he was working on a previous James Bond related article. He and his compatriots have done a fantastic job in that area. Congrats on Ian Fleming becoming an FA. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention (23,025 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

• Ah, Signpost, taking the strongest bit and using that as a quote ;p. For reference, I didn't see the, ah, double-entendre until someone pointed it out to me after I'd hit "save". No phallic imagery was intended in the making of this post. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Which Truth is True? Why Wikipedia Focuses on Verifiability. Oliver Keyes (Wikipedia User:Ironholds) noting in The Signpost (September 24, 2012) that 'allowing article subjects to simply email Wikipedia and have us change something, just because they said so, is wrong, because verifiability cannot be compromised' is spot on, particularly in this Roth situation. After having a conflict of interest IP editor (Roth's biographer) try on 20 August 2012[1] to remove reliably sourced information regarding Anatole Broyard -- (1920 – 1990), father, husband, American writer, literary critic and editor for The New York Times -- from The Human Stain Wikipedia article (followed by the inevitable Wikipedia revert response)[2] novelist Philip Roth then had an open letter to Wikipedia published in The New Yorker on 7 September 2012, blasting Wikipedia for what Roth saw as the encyclopedia's failings because, "I don’t know how else to proceed."[3]

Well, Roth first could have tried responding to American Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Michiko Kakutani when Kakutani first asserted in the New York Times OVER TWELVE YEARS AGO on May 2, 2000 that The Human Stain premise "seemed to have been inspired by the life story of Anatole Broyard."[4] At that time, the ink was still wet on Roths The Human Stain book, but it's possible that Roth and his staff missed the assertion of this Pulitzer Prize-winning critic. However, the New York Times (May 7, 2000), Chicago Sun Times (May 7, 2000), Boston Globe (May 7, 2000), The New York Jewish Week (May 12, 2000), Newsday (May 13, 2000), New Orleans Times Picayune (May 14, 2000), Buffalo News (May 14, 2000), Baltimore Sun (May 14, 2000), Vancouver Sun (May 27, 2000), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (May 28, 2000), Virginia Pilot and Ledger-Star (July 16, 2000), Dallas Morning News (August 20, 2000), Daytona News-Journal (September 3, 2000), and The American Journal of Psychiatry (December 1, 2000) all came out in 2000 and linked Anatole Broyard to The Human Stain. The assertion that the life story of Anatole Broyard inspired The Human Stain continued over the next seven years:

• 2001: Raritan (September 1, 2001)[5], American Prospect (September 10, 2001)[6], Shofar (September 22, 2001)[7]
• 2002: Partisan Review (March 31, 2002)[8], Virginia Quarterly Review (September 30, 2002)[9]
• 2003: Buffalo News (August 31, 2003)[10], Buffalo News (September 4, 2003)[11], New York Times (September 7, 2003)[12], International Herald Tribune (September 10, 2003)[13], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (October 26, 2003)[14], Buffalo News (October 28, 2003)[15], The Canadian Press (October 29, 2003), The Star-Ledger (October 31, 2003), Philadelphia Daily News (October 31, 2003)[16], New Hampshire Union Leader (October 31, 2003), Houston Chronicle (October 31, 2003)[17], South Florida Sun-Sentinel (November 1, 2003), Columbia State (November 1, 2003), Charleston Daily Mail (November 1, 2003)[18], The Press of Atlantic City (November 3, 2003), Long Beach Press-Telegram (November 3, 2003), Houston Chronicle (November 3, 2003)[19], National Post (November 4, 2003)[20], Chicago Tribune (November 9, 2003)[21], Mobile Register (November 11, 2003), Buffalo News (November 14, 2003)[22], Birmingham Post-Herald (November 15, 2003), Chicago Tribune (November 16, 2003), Memphis Commercial Appeal (December 7, 2003)
• 2004: The Observer (January 25, 2004)[23], Guardian.co.uk (January 25, 2004)[24]
• 2006: Shofar (June 22, 2006)[25]
• 2007: The Los Angeles Times notes: "Then in 2001 came Philip Roth's novel "The Human Stain," whose main character was widely thought to be based on Anatole Broyard.[26]. The New York Times notes: "She must try -- as Philip Roth did in The Human Stain, a book that was seemingly prompted by the Broyard story ..."[27]. On top of that, New York (magazine) (September 24, 2007)[28], South Florida Sun-Sentinel (September 30, 2007)[29], Newsday (September 30, 2007), Hartford Courant (September 30, 2007)[30], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (November 4, 2007)[31], Houston Chronicle (November 18, 2007)[32], and African American Review (December 1, 2007)[33] all came out in 2007 and linked Anatole Broyard to The Human Stain.

Years went by while the family and friends of African-American Anatole Broyard suffered humiliation at their husband, father, friend Mr. Broyard being known worldwide as a human stain and the one person who could have put an end to this failed to provide such effort. In 2008, New York based journalist Robert Hilferty asked Roth: "Is Coleman Silk, the black man who willfully passes as white in The Human Stain, based on anyone you knew?" to which Roth replied: "No. There was much talk at the time that he was based on a journalist and writer named Anatole Broyard ... [but] no connection."[34] Fast forward four years, and Roth notes in his 7 September 2012 The New Yorker article blasting Wikipedia for publishing statements that are not "from the world of truthfulness" instead of publishing information "substantiated by fact": "The Human Stain” was inspired, rather, by an unhappy event in the life of my late friend Melvin Tumin."[35]

Wikipedia isn't here to be the arbitrator of truthfulness and this Roth situation -- 2008 Roth fact: 'It's not anyone I know'/2012 Roth fact: 'It's my late friend Melvin Tumin' (who died in 1994) -- is good example of why Wikipedia focuses on verifiability, not truth. It's interesting that Roth's open letter to Wikipedia refers to the conflict of interest IP editor that changed the The Human Stain Wikipedia article as an "interlocutor"[36] which Wiktionary defines as a "man in the middle of the line in a minstrel show (a variety show performed by white people in blackface) who questions the end men and acts as leader." Are we supposed to just assume that Roth's usage of "interlocutor" paralleling his friend's Melvin Tumin's life altering use of the work "spook"[37] is an innocent coincidence from Roth, who has a Pulitzer Prize command of the English language? It's also interesting that Roth would seek out The New Yorker to publish his 2012 distain for Wikipedia, particularly since it was The New Yorker who pre-2004 described African-American Anatole Broyard as the "famously prickly critic for the Times, a man who demanded so much from books that it seemed he could never be satisfied," which was noted in an article asserting that The Human Stain premise seemed to have been inspired by the life story of The New Yorker's competitor Anatole Broyard.[38]

As for Wikipedia, its purpose isn't to be drawn into someone else's publicity seeking performance art. Instead, the lesson to take away from all this is that Wikipedia is nothing more than a publisher that works towards publishing representative surveys of the relevant literature in a way that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Next time, Mr. Roth or anyone else who is the topic of a Wikipedia article and are unhappy with the article, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. Like a thousand other Wikipedians, I'm happy to respond to requests for assistance. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I probably shouldn't say this, but my sense of paradox has gotten the better of me. Let me get this straight - "... he finished the post by condemning the media for simply accepting Roth's claims with no investigation of their own" - the media is horrible, awful, terrible, no-good at fact checking. And Wikipedia must believe whatever is written there even over an author's own statements, in every case, without exception, as an absolute rule, with no common sense allowed - because bad things would happen otherwise. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that was kind of the point; that the media published a piece excoriating Wikipedia's model of validation despite using one just as awful. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what register to respond in. If you're saying tu quoque, that doesn't rebut that Wikipedia is abominable. Are you actually making a pure, true, logical fallacy argument? (Wikipedia's kind of interesting in that it's one of the rare places that combines emotion and technical ability that people really will make very clear logical fallacy arguments). But, in fact, Wikipedia's model is not just as awful. It's really worse, because of that second-order aspect, among other things. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all; I wasn't attempting to rebut the argument that we have problems. We do have problems. I would think that my above statement (pointing out we have an abominable system, just not the only abominable system) would have made that clear. My point is that it's a slightly more pressing concern that the "mainstream" media is incapable of basic fact checking than it is for a project that is written by random people from the aether of the internet: nobody relies on Wikipedia as a whistleblower that keeps governments in check. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

But, that is, basically, a pure Tu quoque. I'd think it a parody to say something like (note tongue-in-cheek tone here please) "How can you criticize Wikipedia as supposedly being full of paranoid tin-pots bureaucrats when, my god, the New York Times helped start a war!!!". And you, Ironholds, how can you be so self-indulgent to write your rant about the unfair treatment of your beloved Wikipedia, when the entire human species is at risk from climate change!!! And of course, how can I write this trivial message, when the world might erupt in nuclear war!!! It's like post-modernism, even if you don't start out with absurdity, you get there pretty quickly. Seriously, not everything has to be devoted to the maximum problem. Especially when that's a way to deflect criticism of another problem, as it's being used here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I not just explicitly say above that not everything has to be devoted to the maximum problem? Some coverage of the larger problems might be nice, however, which is what I was attempting to provide. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I took your phrasing as rhetorical understatement, from context having other than its literal meaning. I'd seriously say there's quite a large amount of value in illuminating Wikipedia's problems given that it is often put forth as a model in many political discussions about organizing society. I believe Wikipedia is in fact under-criticized in a relative sense than mass media. That is, there's plenty of people making insightful critiques of the mass media, and more of them may not be the bottleneck. There's less good material of Wikipedia's dysfunction, since again, in a relative sense, it has far more promoters than critical examiners -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that, sure. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Seth: Yes Wikipedia is flawed because it lacks common sense, but paradoxically that is also the reason it is successful. Using a model that allows "common sense" (i.e. original research) would quickly devolve into chaos since common sense is almost always relative, as is Truth. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kaldari - I don't think it's true that "it is successful" because of that system, except maybe in a very convoluted way. I think it's possible to have an open mind without having one's brains fall out, and it's possible to exercise scholarly judgment without turning into a crank-haven. I believe what's driving the attitude here is much deeper, a rabid ideological hatred of experts. You can see that all through Ironholds's post, which is just seething with bile, really snide and nasty in a common Wikipedian way. And this was met with endorsement per above! I keep getting tempted to write about it myself, but I'm rather hesitant to deal with that snide and nasty attitude full-on for this (and Roth doesn't need my defense). (pre-emptive point - I am aware I am not preaching to the choir here!) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's slightly disingenuous, Seth; you're an intelligent guy :). If you thought that discussing it would lead to "bile, really snide and nasty in a common Wikipedian way" you wouldn't be discussing it with the person who has such a "snide and nasty attitude" - nor saying that about him on a page that all evidence says he watches :). Ironholds (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And for reference: I don't hate experts. I consider myself an expert in a couple of particularly narrow fields, and I'm not that self-loathing ;p. I have a dislike of people who believe that expertise excuses them from the need to abide by little things like "referencing" or "NPOV", which are sort of standard in academia and so shouldn't be too much of a surprise (I appreciate that's not what we're dealing with here, but since you brought my unspoken motives/opinions up...) Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of how big a target I want to make of myself, and if it's worthwhile. Your statement put things into binary categories where it's much more a matter of amounts. It's correct that I probably shouldn't have done this, but I'm not a perfect person in terms of always refraining from doing what I shouldn't do. But it's another logical fallacy to conclude from my arguably making a little mistake that I have no qualms about making a much bigger mistake. Anyway, it's a common response to say something like, I don't hate (category), I just hate (bad people in category). Sadly, the way this is often constructed makes it meaningless. That line about "... anyone who offers to let them touch his Pulitzer" is very revealing about the resentment. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Can I suggest you tie that "resentment" into the rest of that section, as well as my comments here? It doesn't tell you I resent (category), nor does it tell you that the distinction between that and "I hate (bad people in category)" is meaningless; I have an issue with people who think that their real-world achievements absolve them of any right to follow our rules relating to, for example, referencing and neutrality. That line was in the context of "people publishing stuff without checking it because, hey, he's Philip Roth" and should be read as such. I'm sorry if you feel that this distinction is "meaningless" to you. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess a better way of putting it would be; in reply to "why do you hate experts?" my answer is "I don't, I hate people who think personal knowledge voids any need for them to follow our internal rules or standards. Some experts are part of that group". My disapproval is neither of experts, nor exclusively of experts in that group. Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you might not be getting the reference I was making, as you just did exactly what I'm talking about (scarily so). I didn't want to be specific in examples, since it risks being inflammatory. I'd rather not get grief for it, and I doubt anyone else cares by now, so I'll forgo elaboration. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, let me clarify, my remark about "rather hesitant to deal with that snide and nasty attitude full-on" wasn't meant to be directed at you as a purely personal matter. It refers to a widespread Wikipedia booster view, where that post is one instance, but many Wikipedia supporters write material of that overall tenor. But I didn't intend to single you out right there. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have pointed the issue of OTRS contact info missing from the OTRS page over three years ago. I am not totally surprised it hasn't been fixed since. If anyone here is up to date on OTRS contact info, please, be bold and fix that oversight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  Following a chat about this precise issue, Tom Morris tried to add it rather prominently to "contact us" and was reverted. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia's/WMF's administration can get its own house in order, it might have a moral high ground to criticize the media for some of the issues it may have overlooked with the Roth affair. Otherwise, WP/WMF doesn't really have a case. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  Last time I checked I was only part of Wikipedia's administration in the very technical sense, and not part of the WMF's. This was one user's opinion and remains so. Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal (28,534 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

WMUK

Maybe I'm missing something, but this all seems quite overblown to me. He wasn't really editing for money, was he? He just happened to edit topics that bore a tenuous relationship to a government for whom he's consulting. Are all government workers enjoined from editing articles on sites around their government's jurisdiction? Powers ^T 18:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with LtPowers on this, but say that there are issues beyond Bamkin or QRpedia that ought to be addressed. BTW, Tony has done his usual great job writing up a very complicated subject.

What seems to be missing among all the hub-bub is any credible accusation that any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines were broken. With all the accusations flying around, if you can't come up with a possible broken rule, if you haven't gone through any Wikipedia process or dispute resolution procedure - if you've added to the hub-bub, I think you owe an apology to Bamkin.

The scariest part of all this is that the whole thing seems to be driven by outside "news sources" like Fox and by bloggers who don't seem to understand our rules. Wikipedia needs to be prepared for this type of misunderstanding (and likely real problems as well) in the future, e.g. openess by the Foundation to communicate with bloggers, explain our rules, etc.

I'm sure some folks will say I have a COI on this, e.g. I've done a QRpedia project. It's all trival stuff though and I'll fill in the details later.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tony – thank you for recognizing his work here. This was a fantastically convoluted topic to write up. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of it is to do with the fact that WMUK is a charity and held to higher standards than outfits that are not. Wikipedia rules are one thing; real-world rules are another. Roger mixed his roles as a charity trustee, an editor and a private consultant in a way that was widely seen as not consistent with the Nolan requirements that WMUK trustees have to sign up to. The first two are particularly important in this context: Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent. Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK. Given his role as a paid consultant, his actions were also widely seen as inconsistent with Wikipedia's own rules for conflict-of-interest editing (and Wikimedia UK's own Draft best practice guidelines for PR); for example, his user page did not disclose that he was a paid consultant for the government and tourist ministry of Gibraltar (a fact commented on in Spanish daily, El País), yet he took an active role as an editor in getting Gibraltar articles on the main page. Other PR consultants are told that they should just edit article talk pages. JN466 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Of course no public body has accused anybody of violating any charity laws, and the bloggers and Wikipedians who are referring to these laws IMHO are stretching things a bit. COI statements were made, the WMUK noted them and made board decisions based on them - according to, as far as I can see, common practice among charities. What part of the WP:COI guideline was violated? (chapter and verse please) The only possible violation of the Nolan rules seems to be "avoid any appearance of improper behaviour", but "appearance" is, in the final reckoning, in the eye of the beholder. So you've said in effect that you see this as a conflict of interest. I'll say that IMHO this possible appearance disappears, if you look at the situation closely. I do think that the situation could have been handled better by WMUK, and that a talk page disclosure would have been nice (though it isn't required by any Wikipedia rule). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The first Nolan requirement is, "They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent." Unquestionably Roger's company, Victuallers Ltd, profits from the consultancy contract, and unquestionably, his status as a Wikimedia UK director will have been a material factor in his being hired. The arrangement did not avoid the appearance of improper behaviour, as evidenced by media coverage in El País, Le Monde, Frankfurter Rundschau and others, and he did place himself under obligation to an organisation that might seek to influence him in the performance of his role as a board member. I find this quite clear-cut. His resignation was absolutely necessary to protect the charity. JN466 20:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several aspects of the Gibraltarpedia project that I find troubling.

• Most concerning is the clear conflict of interest that Roger Bamkin had once he was hired as a consultant by Monmouth City Council Monmouthshire County Council. he stepped down as Chair of Wikimedia UK, but remained a Trustee. WMUK is a registered charity in the UK and must abide by a fairly strict guidelines as noted here. This is likely to jeopardize WMUK's status as a charity. If Roger offered to resign from the board when first hired as a consultant, the board erred in not accepting his resignation.
• I am uncomfortable that this is a project sponsored by the Tourism Ministry of Gibraltar rather than a partnership with an arts or cultural institution. The people who funded this project are using it to increase tourism. I have already explained the connection to media coverage, one which Roger is well aware of, based on the "I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment" comment on his LinkedIn page.
• I am uncomfortable with the fact that this project is being run in a very "non-standard" way, with the effect of duplicating the existing Wikipedia:Wikiproject Gibraltar, using an external domain name on its template, and being run as a contest which offers a trip to Gibraltar as the main prize.
• I am uncomfortable that this project and Monmouthpedia rely on a web site not controlled by Wikimedia UK or the WMF. The QR codes point to a site which directs them to Wikipedia now, but there is nothing to stop the owner of this domain from redirecting them elsewhere, asking the user to read an ad before redirecting, or even framing Wikipedia with banner ads. I am told negotiations for this domain have been going on for some months, but I do not understand how WMUK could support the project when the ownership of the domain was not settled.
• I am uncomfortable with the idea that having that many DYKs on any topic in such a short time frame is possible and that it took so long before someone raised the alarm.
• I am uncomfortable that Roger did not remove himself from any Gibraltar-related editing before it became an issue.

The media reports may have mistakenly focused on paid editing, but the lack of clear paid editing does not mean that all is well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mini COI statements: Over the course of a month or so (Jan-Feb), I helped contribute about 8 DYKs on Pre-Raphealite painters, as part of a small GLAM project. Bamkin helped with 2-3 of these, as did others. "Getting a DYK" is a good way to check your work - is it really up to standards? - and to get lots of feedback when it appears on the Main Page. The museum involved would probably have liked to move away from Rossetti and friends, but they didn't really have much to say about it. I also received DYK credit on one Gibraltar related DYK.

These mini COI statements are relevant to this discussion because the question will always come up "How far does a COI statement have to go?" COI standards differ greatly around the world, and we are a world-wide project. We need to have specific, enforceable COI rules, so that folks will follow them. This means a policy, not a guideline. As far as I can tell, Bamkin followed all the rules as they are now written. But we could use other more clear rules, and even have COI declarations mandated in one specific place (e.g. on the user page, and/or article talk pages). If we don't, there will be many more "this is sorta near the borderline" type of accusations - to the detriment of our editors and of our reputation as a whole. In short, we need to protect ourselves and our editors from this sort of nonsense by having a policy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just a minor correction - there's no such authority as "Monmouth city council". You mean Monmouthshire County Council, which is planning to extend the Monmouthpedia initiative to other parts of its area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've corrected it above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• My concern about this situation is the effect on Wikipedia's reputation for independence and neutrality of being seen to be in bed with a marketing organization. Previous GLAM joint ventures with museums and the like have not raised any problem, because their aims agree with ours - to make information freely available. This is different, because the partner organization's stated aim is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia... effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost". One reason we do not take advertisements is that it might be perceived that our editorial content could be influenced by a wish to please, or not to offend, the advertisers. There is exactly the same risk here. The Gibraltar Chronicle reported that "the people from Wikipedia UK" had reassured them that "edits by those who did not have Gibraltar's best interests at heart" could be reverted; it is explained that this reassurance was about vandalism, but will the Spanish read it that way?

Even if every article produced by a collaboration is beyond reproach, we should be concerned at the effect on our reputation of the blaze of publicity announcing a joint venture with a commercial or political organization. Consider possible press releases:

• "Wikipedia in joint venture with Derby Museum" - no problem
• "Wikipedia in joint venture with Ministry of Truth, Republic of Totalitaristan" - disastrous

We can argue whether "Wikipedia in joint venture with Gibraltar Ministry of Tourism" is or is not too far down this slippery slope, but it is disquieting that we have been organized into this position by one or two users, not even by a Chapter (Wikimedia UK say this is not their venture). I believe, and have proposed at WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations, that some form of advance approval is needed before an individual, or even a Chapter, can commit Wikipedia to a relationship which may give rise to publicity suggesting either that we endorse the other party's aims or that they may influence our content. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to see the discussion moving away from Paid Editing - which is how the press sold the "story." AFAIK, there wasn't any paid editing.
• The accusations now focus on UK charity law. I have little or no expertise in this area, and doubt others here have any as well. I'd want to hear from somebody who does have some expertise before saying there was anything wrong.
• Policy questions are what really matter here to me. Should we actually have a paid editing policy (to avoid similar nonsense in the future)? A collaboration policy? Stricter rules for COIs at chapters? Perhaps a code of ethics for firms or people who consult in areas involving Wikipedia, but who don't actually edit? Any movement in these areas would IMHO avoid nastiness in the future. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Smallbones, as far as we could tell, no one has been paid to edit—not directly. And paid editing is permitted on en.WP anyway. The problem arises from the enormous loopholes in the DYK process, including this quid pro quo (QPQ) system they use to drum up more reviews—it invites editors to act in concert in the reviewing process, so who would expect this kind of thing not to happen? It's been going on, intermittently at DYK, for some time. While the DYK stuff here was a bit naughty, we should be embarrassed that the rules encourage it, and should fix the DYK process. Like WMUK's failure to deal with CoI, despite Roger's entreaties, the problem is systemic. Tony (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly hope the remainder of the WMUK Board is paying attention here. Their failure to accept Roger's resignation when it was tendered is a good part of the reason this became such a big deal, and when they finally accepted it the issue immediately started to cool down. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ignoring the debate about this project, I'm concerned about the article's statement that "However, a member of WMUK has told the Signpost he believes the board is naive about conflict of interest, and that all chapters and the foundation need to learn lessons from this scenario. It is not good enough, he said, to disclose potential conflicts and to have COI policies if people in leadership positions don't understand COI." Why is this person not named? This is hardly an out-there opinion, and I'm not seeing a reason to publish what is after all fairly serious criticism of people without it being properly attributed so that readers, and other members of WMUK, can evaluate it properly (Eg, is the person who's being quoted in any position to make an informed comment on this topic, or did they join WMUK last week? Are they in good standing, or are they a crank - we have no way of knowing). As a general comment, the article mixes reportage with opinion, and is of low quality - I'm not at all convinced its a balanced story on this issue given this quote and the writer inserting his views into the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly did I insert my views into the article? That is what I've done on this talk page, as any editor may do. But the Signpost's editor in chief would think poorly of editorialising in "News and notes". Could you refer your allegation to him, please? On the matter of the WMUK source, I can assure you he/she is not "a crank", has been a member for some years, and is a respected member of the movement. I will not reveal sources where they speak on the record only on the understanding that they won't be named. This is common journalistic practice; we try to minimise it, but this is not always possible or desirable. And if by "hardly an out-there opinion" you mean that it's an unusual opinion, perhaps you might speak to a few people in the know and read Tango's blog, linked in the story. (The anon source is not Tango.) Could you justify your allegation that the article is "of low quality"? Tony (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

• Given that it's generally considered unacceptable to include criticisms of living people from anonymous commentators in BLP articles, why is it acceptable here? On what grounds did you choose to run with this criticism while not attributing it? - this was your decision, and not the decision of whoever it is you're quoting (who you could have left out of the story). I've seen several members of WMUK publicly criticise what's taken place here, so there appear to be no good grounds for using this instead of someone who was willing to put their name to criticism. I note the New York Times policy on the use of anonymous sources (which is available about halfway down the page here) generally frowns on the use of such sources ("The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers newsworthy and reliable..."), as does the BBC ("Sometimes information the public should know is only available through sources or contributors on an 'off-the-record' or anonymous basis"). The Signpost obviously isn't the NYT or BBC and different views exist, but the basic principle seems eminently sensible, especially given WP:BLP applies here.
• In regards to inserting your views, the article includes non-neutral wording such as "This appears to be confirmed by the fact that by 30 June, Roger had already offered his resignation to the board twice, clearly perceiving that there might be a COI in his emerging extra roles." (clear cut opinion; you're interpreting the actions of people and arguing that whoever your unnamed source is is correct as a result), "A single diff, then, is evidence that the problem is systemic" (you're clearly passing judgement on the WMUK board with this), and "That the problem might be systemic resonates with recently blogged complaints" (ditto; this is casting judgement and placing emphasis on one side of the argument - which just so happens to be the side you've previously come down on). Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Responses by Tony1. I think I speak for all Signpost staff when I say that criticism of our methods and writing is welcome if it's well-reasoned and balanced. To take your main points in turn:

• "it's generally considered unacceptable to include criticisms of living people from anonymous commentators in BLP articles, why is it acceptable here?"

  This is neither a biographical article nor a Wikipedia article, but a news story, and for very good reasons is of a quite different genre (its purpose, to start with, is very different, although the notions of balance and fairness are shared in common with WP articles).

• "On what grounds did you choose to run with this criticism while not attributing it? - this was your decision, and not the decision of whoever it is you're quoting (who you could have left out of the story)."

  Yes, it was absolutely my decision to use one source I came across, without sending out rafts of emails to WMUK members I knew were probably critical, which would have been uncool and difficult to achieve in the tight timeframe. SP stories have a deadline, unlike WP articles—an article like this takes a huge amount of work and is usually done under time-pressure, and I doubt I'd have found a WMUK member to speak on the record and be named. Thank you for quoting the BBC's policy, which is similar to my own understanding of standard journalistic practice ("Sometimes information the public should know is only available through sources or contributors on an 'off-the-record' or anonymous basis"). I stand by the quoting of an unnamed source on this occasion and reject the censure.

• "the article includes non-neutral wording such as 'This appears to be confirmed by the fact that by 30 June, Roger had already offered his resignation to the board twice, clearly perceiving that there might be a COI in his emerging extra roles.'".

  Please take a look at the diff again. If you draw different conclusions from it, you're welcome to present a detailed set of reasons here. Roger Bamkin certainly didn't take issue with the interpretation when I read out the text to him on the phone before publication. The phone call lasted for nearly an hour, but again, for good reasons you'd probably accept if were able to tell you, some of it was off the record.

• "That the problem might be systemic resonates with recently blogged complaints" (ditto; this is casting judgement and placing emphasis on one side of the argument - which just so happens to be the side you've previously come down on)".

  It does indeed resonate with Tango's points, and I believe it was reasonable to point this out (to me, it's self-evident; but you're welcome to analyse it differently). Please note that the article quotes much harsh criticism that was directed at Roger Bamkin (some of it retracted in private, but I'm not at liberty to disclose the details); the story also quotes two substantial paragraphs of text published by the WMUK board, including from its press release. Somewhere, the story needed to show that the WMUK board was making serious errors of judgement, too. That's what I call balance, rather than coming "down on" one side, as you accuse. I stand by that interpretation of the diff and of other evidence presented in the story. Tony (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons

• Let's see here... Commons is adding more than 9,000 files a day, by my math. Where are they coming from? How are they being monitored? Carrite (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • They are coming from users, who upload them. They are monitored by volunteers like you and me. Powers ^T 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a file every 10 seconds, 24 hours a day, every day. It's physically impossible to monitor that amount of content. Further: I suggest a substantial fraction of this material are being sucked off of image sites by bot. What percentage is bot-driven and what is the mechanism for ensuring that claimed copyright clearance on these image sites matches reality? Carrite (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question about the bot ratio. My guess is the mechanism is WP:AGF, otherwise known as "fingers crossed" or "whistling in the dark". --JN466 20:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the math off the top of my head, but I do know that commons uploads aren't evenly distributed ... a large number of commons uploads come in batches all at once, i.e. all the pictures from the National Archives, etc. A list of many of these projects can be found here. These are "pre-checked" in a way because they are all from a museum or cultural institution. The rest are indeed from users uploading photos. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia receives new articles at an even greater rate. Are those also "physically impossible" to monitor? Powers ^T 13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Wikipedia has a much greater number of active users than Commons, but that is beside the point. I have several times suggested that allowing anyone to upload images to Commons and having them immediately available for reuse without any kind of vetting is a model that has several obvious flaws. I have been told that it would be "impossible" for all of those images to be reviewed before they are made available. I can only conclude that the WMF is not serious about its stated (and legal) commitment to copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exact numbers, but from what I understand there are maybe a dozen files removed each year based on "take down orders." To me that suggests that there is no crisis here. Does anybody have numbers on other websites? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I probably get a dozen copyright violations deleted per year as a result of deletion requests I file on Commons. Dozens of files are deleted on a daily basis as copyright violations. "Take down orders" is a silly metric to use unless you believe that copyright violations only matter if someone complains. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• One complaint for every, say, 250,000 uploads is remarkably low however you look at it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not low when orphaned or poorly linked commons pictures are rarely seen by anyone. I rarely see commons in Google image search results, for whatever reason. Are they NOINDEXed? Gigs (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The last few months have seen a dramatic improvement in the upload process at Commons which can now handle batches of fifty images. That and the Wiki Loves monuments program are probably big parts of that latest million. As for monitoring new uploads, there is a whitelisting system so presumably new images by trusted users probably get little if any checking with most of the checking on the non-whitelisted uploads. I don't know if we actually have a big problem there, I've tagged a handful of images for deletion but they were a borderline issue. But if people are worried there is an easy solution, go there and check a random sample of uploads yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Approximately 55,000 of the last million images were created and uploaded by my bot from CC-licensed statistical data: commons:Category:Images_using_data_from_the_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics. Nobody needed to check their copyright individually. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012 (6,173 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

• Is "weening" a typo for "weaning" or is it really the archaic term meant to mean "to think or imagine"? Shyamal (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You have spotted a very prominent typo unfortunately! Renklauf (talk) Wed Sep 26 19:10:01 UTC 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This report is full of glaring typos and grammatical errors. Perhaps the authors should have copyedited it before publishing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would regard "full of" as somewhat exaggerated, but yes, some parts didn't really get copyedited before publication, due to lack of time. I think I can speak for the Signpost's copy-editing team in saying that copyeditors are always welcome - check Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status for sections that are marked "needs copyedit", during the run-up to publication (currently around Monday or early Tuesday UTC). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• "They suggest Wikipedia editors ... build tools that aid in identifying and supporting desirable newcomers." Sounds great. Has anyone ever tried to do anything like that? Can we make a bot that goes through new editors' article contributions looking for patterns matching additions with references and handing out robo-encouragement? —Cupco 21:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. We should pursue this. Note that this can also be done manually through active wikiprojects; for WP:POLAND I review new articles weekly, and I leave some semi-templates thank you notes for creators of good articles (usually advising them they may want to DYK them), and/or inviting them to join our wikiproject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show support at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Robo-encourageator because an auto-welcome bot is a perennial proposal which is generally thought to be a bad idea, but looking, for example, for new editors who have added a <ref> tag in at least two edits as I suggested to get started, is a substantially different thing than simply welcoming all new accounts and IPs. —Cupco 19:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have a look at Wikipedia:Volunteer Fire Department. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That seemed to be able handling server load issues, not trying to identify the best new editors. —Cupco 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess there is no active Wikipedian left who remembers this group -- & I don't consider myself very active. The Volunteer Fire Department's purpose was to welcome new members & help them adapt to Wikipedia. An early article describing Wikipedia & its culture singled out the VFD as an important group for that reason; many online communities have disintegrated when they were overrun by people who wanted to turn the sites into their own playgrounds or otherwise subvert their intended purpose. Until late 2003, Wikipedia ran on a grand total of three computers, so the arrival of even a few dozen new members in 24 hours would cause significant server load issues. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The problem of first-time editors having their edits reverted is a real problem. There are a number of topic areas in Wikipedia, not all of them seemingly that controversial, in which groups of established editors are resistant to any changes being made to that topic's articles, and revert almost all changes or additions on sight. Wikipedia probably should make it clearer that reverts, including single ones, are subject to sanction if the editor who did the revert made no effort to correct, discuss, or improve the edit in question. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• If the average quality of a "newbie" contribution is, say, 0.5 on a scale of 0–1, then, as the average quality of all articles surpasses that value (whatever it actually is), then the number of newbie reverts must go up, as desired. I think what we're seeing is just natural behavior. (I didn't read the article yet, though; I just found this discussion via a more recent one here)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Where to post? - on-topic possible partial explanaton

Where should I post this info on a possible partial explanaton of part of this article's topic? ParkSehJik (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times (2,229 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

• For the search logs - that's kind of embarrassing especially given that I'm pretty sure its a re-occouring topic on wikitech-l about how we do not release search logs for the very reason they were taken down... Bawolff (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The data should be available for researchers. The benefits for the community are significant. To avoid spam harvesting, the data could be put behind a registration wall or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• • It's more than embarrassing. Every time this topic (releasing search logs) has ever come up, the AOL search data leak is mentioned. It seems Wikimedia wanted to join the club? I'm kind of shocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-difference in PEF-1 success rate

There was no significant difference in the success rate of editors in the PEF-1 experiment. When I arrived, this report stated that there was an insignificant decrease in quality. This is both false and misleading. There was actually an insignificant increase in quality in the reported statistics. However, this detail is irrelevant since the statistical test failed to identify a meaningful difference and other analyses from the report reversed the comparison. The best we can report to a lay audience is that no change was observed. See meta:Research:Post-edit_feedback/PEF-1. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite right, I misread the chart. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011 (457 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2012-09-24

Discuss this story

• Good title. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)