Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-04
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/From the editors
The American Heartland
The American heartland appears to dominate the Report this week, with Chris Kyle leading the Report for another week, the film about his life at #3, and our #2 slot filled by the Royal Rumble wrestling event. A lot of other American topics including American football fill the list and the greater Top 25, this week, though India contributed the new film Baby at #13 and its annual Republic Day at #16 in the Top 25.
For the full top 25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions.
For the week of January 25 to 31, 2015, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
Rank Article Class Views Image Notes 1 Chris Kyle 
2,653,157 
Down 50% from an astounding 5.3 million views last week, but still far and away enough to top the Report for another week. I find it rather surprising that Kyle's article and the American Sniper article have been quite so popular. Like the many occasions where wrestling events I've never heard of make the Top 25, these articles are tapping a segment of the American populace that is somewhat disconnected from the rest of the world and other cultural topics. 2 Royal Rumble (2015) N/A 1,245,749 
When I made the wrestling analogy above, I did not even know that #2 was going to be a wrestling event. This WWE pay per view event was held on January 25, 2015 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Roman Reigns (#22), who I have never heard of, won the "Royal Rumble" match. 3 American Sniper (film) 
807,758 
Consistent with the drop in views in #1, this is down from 1.5 million views last week, but still quite popular. 4 Stephen Hawking
653,915 
The former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, black hole theorist, and latter-day science icon makes his 13th straight appearance in the Top 25 this week. Was Albert Einstein this consistently popular in his day? 5 Barack Obama 
653,661 
The president of the United States was more popular than usual this week (he had 359,000 views last week, and 200,000 the week before that), with views rising particularly around January 27. 6 Samuel Adams
609,610 
A big jump in views for this American founding father started on January 26, probably due to the Sons of Liberty three-part American miniseries. 7 Auschwitz concentration camp 
595,834 
In the news due to the 70th anniversary of its liberation. 8 Marshawn Lynch
560,125 
Star American footballer for the Seattle Seahawks, who does not like dealing with media, but popular in the run-up to Super Bowl XLIX held on February 1. 9 Facebook
542,557 
A perennially popular article. 10 Harald Bluetooth
536,985 
Reddit learned (as did I) that "the symbol for bluetooth is a bind rune made from the pre-viking runes of the tenth century king, Harald Bluetooth's name."
.JPG)
Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue
Media fallout from Gamergate arbitration case continues
Media fallout continues from the January 29 decision in the mammoth Gamergate arbitration case, which had 27 named parties, including this author, and resulted in sanctions against 13 of them. Initial media coverage of the case consisted of short pieces that mostly reiterated the contents of a January 23 story in The Guardian which contained some factual inaccuracies. Now that the case has been closed, some media outlets have published longer stories examining the matter more closely.
Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey wrote "Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of ‘human knowledge'" (January 29) in the Post's digital and Internet culture blog, The Intersect. Dewey pointed out a distinction that many Wikipedians complained was missing from media coverage of the case, that the Committee was not deciding on the merits of the Gamergate controversy or the contents of that article, but merely "judging the behavior of the site editors". Of that behavior, she wrote:
| “ | Anti-Gamergaters claimed that their sworn enemies were “weaponizing Wikipedia” to promote a misogynist agenda and slander women in the gaming industry. Pro-Gamergaters identified five feminist Wikipedia editors whom they accused of bias and wanted driven off the site. Both sides alleged that organized factions plotted how to manipulate Wikipedia off-site, and then dove into the encyclopedia to carry out their ideological campaigns.
These accusations should sound fairly familiar because they’re issues Wikipedia faces with some regularity. On a site anybody can edit, how do you keep pranksters, libelists, PR firms and motivated ideologues from dropping in and mucking everything up? More pressingly, perhaps, how do you get all these different people to agree on one version of a controversial story? |
” |
She added that "the decision was a highly visible test of whether the Web site that millions of people turn to for facts can actually present facts in a fair and neutral way" and pointed out that to many, the Committee failed this test. She noted that critics "accused the [Arbitration Committee] of failing to support women more aggressively, an issue that goes straight to Wikipedia’s lengthy struggle against systemic bias."
Dewey concludes:
| “ | Solving that problem was, of course, not ArbCom’s explicit mandate. And members of the group are hopeful that by censuring some of the worst, most biased offenders, they’ll inch the Gamergate page—and all of Wikipedia—closer to objective truth.
But given all the ongoing drama, one wonders if there can ever be such a thing. Perhaps consensus doesn’t always work. Maybe even very well-meaning people can’t transcend their own inherent, unvoiced biases to the point of absolute objectivity. Maybe human knowledge has its limits, even when it’s summed. |
” |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Gamergate In Gawker, Andy Cush wrote "The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia" (January 30). Cush noted that intital media coverage of the case focused on the fact that "Despite the organization's repeated insistence that it is not taking sides in the conflict, it ruled to punish five editors who were specifically targeted by a coordinated Gamergate attack." As a result "Wikipedia has launched a full-scale charm offensive...reassuring readers that Wikipedia remains committed to civility and a neutral point of view".
The fact that the decision sanctioned parties on both sides of the dispute has been held up as evidence that the decision was an equitable one, but according to Cush "the parity is precisely the problem." This is because Gamergate supporters targeted five Wikipedia editors in what was called Operation Five Horsemen. All five were sanctioned by the Committee, with two topic banned and one site banned. Cush wrote, "Whether the committee knew it or not, it was expressly doing the bidding of a group of Gamergaters who plotted to take control of the Wikipedia article … Operation Five Horsemen was a resounding success."
Cush wrote:
| “ | ... the Gamergate dispute is not a case of two opposing but equally reasonable parties in search of a compromise...supporters of Gamergate have fashioned Wikipedia into a weapon to be used against their targets...coordinating to revive dormant Wikipedia accounts for the sole purpose of making Gamergate edits. The so-called anti-Gamergate editors have fought to make sure that the movement is represented as it actually exists—a campaign against women and feminism in gaming under the guise of an ill-defined crusade about "ethics." One side is populated by people who are working in good faith to make Wikipedia a more accurate and useful resource; the other by malicious trolls. Each was reprimanded equally. | ” |
Cush warns of
| “ | one of Wikipedia's most fundamental flaws: aside from the purely democratic groupthink of its editors, no mechanism exists for governing the site's content. If enough web-savvy pseudoscientists decided tomorrow to use Wikipedia to espouse the merits of phrenology, or a racist campaign in support of eugenics flooded the site, there's not much Wikipedia could do about it. Good editors would work against the crazies, of course, and if ArbCom found evidence of conduct violations it could punish the interlopers that way, but there's no system in place for Wikipedia's administrators to say, Your ideas are wrong, and they're not welcome here. | ” |
Cush compares the situation to that of the Croatian Wikipedia, which was taken over by "a group of far-right reactionaries" in 2013. The Wikimedia Foundation took no action and the country's Education Minister openly discouraged students from using the encyclopedia.
It should be noted that these articles cited the work of two critics who have been involved in the Gamergate dispute on Wikipedia. Dewey cited Slate commentator David Auerbach (Auerbachkeller), who had a long-running public spat with one key party, Ryulong, one of the "Five Horsemen" who was indefinitely site banned as a result of the case. Both Dewey and Cush cited Mark Bernstein (MarkBernstein), who was topic banned from Gamergate articles by this author and whose blog posts critical of Wikipedia were used as a source for the Guardian article and have been frequently cited in media coverage and commentary on this case.
Muhammad images continue to draw controversy
Also from Gawker's Andy Cush this week is an examination (January 26) of how Wikipedians dealt with the issue of depicting Muhammad in the wake of the January 7 Charlie Hebdo shooting. Cush puts it in the context of the long history of disputes regarding such images, including the 2008 petition drive to remove the images (see previous Signpost coverage) and the 2011 Muhammad images Arbitration case. Cush notes that the issue seems to have settled into a "status quo" with images depicting Muhammad remaining in relevant articles, while a calligraphic image of the prophet, a depiction which is common in the Muslim world, is used as lead infobox picture in the Muhammad article. This status quo is enforced through an FAQ page and a Talk:Muhammad/Images talk page dedicated solely to the issue of images in the article. Both pages provide or link to instructions so editors can modify their CSS page to prevent them from seeing those images. On the talk page, posts advocating removal of the images are common even without prompting from external events. For example, in April 2014, an editor advocated removing the images on the grounds of historical inaccuracy because they "contradict the well established historical fact: that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking."
Cush recounts that two days after the Hebdo shooting a new editor, Emin Čamo, opened another such discussion, advocating removal of the images on the grounds that they were "offensive" and "violent propaganda" which prompted riots. Established editors like Amatulic pointed out that "Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy... All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them." The discussion turned acrimonious, with Čamo declaring that "the arrogance of the editors on wikipedia is too big for a normal discussion" before abandoning the issue. Cush also offers an incident from the opposite perspective a day later. Andrew J.Kurbiko replaced the calligraphic image in the infobox of the Muhammad article with a 17th century Western depiction of the prophet, writing in the edit summary "its logical step to show His face after lastest [sic] Paris events. is consistent with the policies of Wikipedia. everyone has a face." The edit was reverted shortly over an hour later.
Paging Doctor Wikipedia
The Daily Mail reports (January 30) on the findings of a Research Now poll of 300 general practitioners in the UK. The poll found that 8 percent "regularly" consult Wikipedia to assist in a diagnosis, while 44 percent "sometimes" use it for this purpose. Some expressed concern at these findings, but Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said
| “ | GPs are increasingly using good and helpful websites such as NHS websites and those of reputable charities in our consultations, which we flag up to patients as good sources of reliable information.
When Wikipedia is used, it is more of an aide memoire or shortcut to remind a GP of the name of a charity, for example, and any information needs to be used in the context of their underlying knowledge and understanding that it is not the definitive word on a subject. I think it is quite legitimate when it is used in that way. |
” |
In brief
.JPG)
- WikiGnomes of the world, unite and take over: In Medium, author Andrew McMillen profiles (February 3) Wikipedia editor Giraffedata and his obsessive and quixotic quest to rid Wikipedia of the ungrammatical phrase "comprised of". Giraffedata has amassed over 47 thousand edits since 2007 in pursuit of this goal and is one of the one thousand most prolific Wikipedia editors. Giraffedata's brother Laodah also got into the act in 2012, removing instances of the phrase "based around".
- Objection: In Mint, Alok Prasanna Kumar of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy charts the use (February 3) of Wikipedia in citations by Indian courts. The Supreme Court of India has not cited Wikipedia since 2011, though it continues to be cited by Indian High Courts. Kumar advocated that courts "abandon references to Wikipedia as an authority on anything."
- Disappointing Future Hearts: Alex Gaskarth of All Time Low denies rumors (February 3) to SugarScape that appeared in the Wikipedia article for his band's upcoming album Future Hearts. The rumor was that Calum Hood and Luke Hemmings of 5 Seconds of Summer had participated in writing the album.
- Philippine history: The Manila Standard Today reports (February 2) on the Philippine Cultural Heritage Mapping project to document historical sites in the country.
- Nigerian history: In the Premium Times, Ifeanyi Uddin discusses (February 1) the difficulties he had in creating Wikipedia articles on Nigerian sports figures of the 1970s and 80s due to the lack of reliable sources available digitally. He suggests Nigerians rise "to the challenge of properly documenting our history" through methods like digitizing Nigerian newspapers.
- "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member": In "Fighting the Wikipedia boys' club" (January 29), Dazed profiles Art+Feminism and their efforts to fight gender bias on Wikipedia.
- Editathon: Fast Company complains "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" (January 29), listing some topics that will hopefully be improved at the February 7 editathon at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. The Huffington Post interviewed (February 2) Schomburg director Khalil Gibran Muhammad about the editathon.
- Book review: Times Higher Education reviews (January 29) Thomas Leitch's 2014 book Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority and Liberal Education in the Digital Age.
- Reliable sources: Courtney Johnston, Director of the Dowse Art Museum, writes "So You Want to Research a Wikipedia Article" (January 28), offering key web and print resources museum staffers used to create over 70 articles on New Zealand craft artists.
- Never Tear You Apart: Refinery29 offers "30 Heartbreaking Wiki Pages That'll Tear You Apart" (January 28).
Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes
- Editor's note: the Signpost has arranged to mirror Tech news from the Meta-Wiki to supplement the long-form tech coverage in our infrequent Technology report. Please let us know what you think of this or any of our new features in the comments.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- There was a security issue on Wikimedia Labs. Many Labs tools were down after the issue was fixed. [1]
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from February 3. It will be on all Wikipedias from February 4 (calendar).
- The "Save page" button in the VisualEditor toolbar is now blue rather than green. This is the same as on the mobile site. [2]
- You can now edit pages on the draft namespace with VisualEditor on the Russian Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia. You can ask to get VisualEditor for a namespace on your wiki. When your community agrees, ask in Phabricator. [3] [4]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Opinion
No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia
There is a sizable gender gap among Wikipedia editors, with some estimates suggesting women comprise only 10–15% of the editing community. While the exact figures are certainly debatable, most agree that having a disproportionate number of male editors has the potential to create—or already has created—a systemic bias towards topics in which men are generally more interested. Over the years, the Wikimedia Foundation and others have endeavored to bridge the gender gap with projects such as the Teahouse, the Gender Gap Task Force (GGTF), and various Meta initiatives, such as the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
Recently, Wikipedia editor Lightbreather, a participant in GGTF and other such projects, began developing a grant proposal ("WikiProject Women") to create an on-wiki exclusive space for women to discuss issues, support one another, and recruit new editors. Thus far, her idea has received mixed reviews.
Lightbreather proposed WikiProject Women because in current wiki discussion venues, it is likely that men will comprise a significant percentage of discussants. Moreover, discussions descend into vitriol rather frequently, which women often find off-putting. If Wikipedia is ever going to close its gender gap, she reasons, women must play a central role, and to do that, they need a space to discuss issues where they can guarantee hearing predominantly women's voices. She told the Signpost:
| “ | No single event made me start this. I simply got fed up with the hostility that I experienced and observed in many discussions and edit summaries. The antagonistic Wikipedia editing environment is one that most men (and some women) seem to embrace (or at least to endure), whereas most women (and some men) do not. | ” |
Lightbreather points to the Arbitration Committee's decision on the Gender Gap Task Force case as an example of the need to include more women's voices in Wikipedia discussions. That case was criticized by many both on and off Wikipedia (including Slate columnist David Auerbach; see previous Signpost coverage) for site-banning a female editor while issuing lesser sanctions to her two male antagonists. Lightbreather believes that a committee with a different gender composition would have reached a different conclusion:
| “ | If there had been six men and six women (instead of 11 men and 1 woman), on that committee, either a) the one known woman editor who was banned would have had two known men editors for company, or b) the one known woman and the known men would have all been spared. However, what happened was c) the one known woman editor was banned and the known men were spared. | ” |
Lightbreather cites this article from Forbes entitled "Why Women Need Women-Only Networks" to explain why men agreeing to let women have space to flesh out ideas collaboratively alone is not sufficient.
Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
2 March 2024
Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias
31 October 2022
Measuring gender diversity in Wikipedia articles
29 May 2022
Cherchez une femme
28 June 2020
Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
30 April 2019
The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps
30 April 2019
It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias
26 April 2018
Revenge of "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..."
9 March 2016
Wikipedian is break-out star of International Women's Day; dinosaur art; Wikipedia's new iOS app and its fight for market share
9 March 2016
The new alchemy: turning online harassment into Wikipedia articles on women scientists
9 March 2016
Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?
2 March 2016
Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month
17 February 2016
Teaching Wikipedia, Does advertising the gender gap help or hurt Wikipedia?
6 January 2016
Women in Red—using teamwork and partnerships to elevate online and offline collaborations
16 December 2015
"Wikipedia's hostility to women"
21 October 2015
Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
21 October 2015
No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia
4 February 2015
Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap
31 December 2014
Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures
26 November 2014
Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education
24 September 2014
IEG funding for women's stories—a new approach to the gender gap
4 June 2014
Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
12 March 2012
Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
27 February 2012
Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed
12 December 2011
Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
29 August 2011
Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories
15 August 2011
Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
8 August 2011
Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
21 February 2011
Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
14 February 2011
Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia
7 February 2011
Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Wikipedia "community"?; brief news
31 January 2011
Andreas Kolbe agreed, commenting, "What is clear (you only need to look at the GGTF discussions in the [English Wikipedia]) is that there should be a space where women can hear themselves talk and think about the gender gap without constantly having men take potshots at them, or otherwise undermining their efforts."
Lightbreather has created an area in her userspace she calls the "kaffeeklatsch" as a test area for her larger idea. As of press time, a miscellany for deletion discussion is ongoing.
Notably, Eric Corbett, who was topic banned from discussing Wikipedia gender issues on the English Wikipedia as a result of the Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case, wondered how this proposal would differ from previous ones to include only certain editors in a certain area of the encyclopedia: "I recall that in the not too distant past a project that selected membership on the basis of editors having written a GA/FA was deleted," he wrote. "The argument was that every page should be open to everyone to contribute to. What's the difference here?"
As for the discussion on Meta, although some support has been enthusiastic, much of it has been tempered. For example, LauraHale said, "Unless there is a way to address the underlying cultural issues that make Wikipedia such a hostile environment for women, this feels like trying to find a bandaid solution to a gunshot wound ... Something needs to be done though, and if a bandaid is it, then a bandaid it shall be."
Opposition to the proposal is largely three-pronged.
One view is that the proposal subverts the notion of equality of men and women. German Wikipedia user Martina Nolte wrote "The proposal is an attempt to enforce positive discrimination in favor of female contributors, and is highly polarizing and deviding [sic] the community." Meanwhile, an anonymous editor commented that the proposal "is antithetical to the notion that women are equal to men," to which Lightbreather responded that the comment "oversimplifies a complex problem."
The second recurring view is that it implies a direct contradiction with the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and will not improve gender relations anyway. SuperHamster said, "Wikipedia is largely governed by the idea that anyone in the community can contribute to discussions; splitting off discussions to a women-only forum, in which men cannot contribute, comment, or offer constructive criticism is not something that fosters a community-driven environment. We need to find solutions that help integrate women into the community, not segregate." Lightbreather disagrees:
| “ | I think it has more potential to advance the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When I first started actively editing on Wikipedia, I would have loved such a space. I desperately searched for women and found very few. I finally found a mature, woman mentor, and that saved me from quitting the project altogether. | ” |
The most prevalent view in opposition to the proposal centers on the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which states, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics."
Several editors reasoned that an area banning homosexuals, Muslims, or another group from a particular area on the encyclopedia would be preposterous, so banning men from a particular area of the encyclopedia would be equally preposterous.
Lightbreather said she would be fine with other minorities having their own spaces on Wikipedia as well. She went on to suggest, "First, let us try to recruit and retain more women editors. If relations worsen, let us have a discussion about it that is not dominated by men or women."
Presently, the idea remains in the idea formulation stage, but come April when the individual engagement grant review committee begins to accept applications, Lightbreather plans to submit one for her idea.
Although most agree the gender gap is a problem on Wikipedia, only time will tell if Lightbreather's uniquely drastic proposal is part of the solution.
- Editor's note: The author of this article has previously corresponded with the interview subject, including during a recent arbitration enforcement discussion.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Serendipity
Is Wikipedia for sale?
A few months ago, now-banned editor FergusM1970 linked to an attack page he had one of his friends write about me. In turn, this page linked to Fergus' Twitter and Elance accounts—the latter a privately owned clearing house for employers to post jobs, search for freelance professionals, and solicit proposals. It was there that I discovered one of the darker sides of Wikipedia.
On Elance, hundreds of posted jobs offer money to edit Wikipedia. Companies like the now-former Wiki-PR, which was involved in a paid advocacy scandal that encompassed hundreds to thousands of Wikipedia accounts and pages, will pay for articles about specific individuals and entities. Others ask to add links to drive traffic to other websites, and yet others are jobs to remove negative content. These jobs appear to be thriving, with tens of thousands of dollars changing hands each month.
With a little bit of looking around, it's fairly easy to determine which account wrote what content and for how much. A number of patterns became clear. Most individuals are undeclared paid editors. Many use a single sockpuppet for one or two jobs and then move on to the next account. One editor stated that they are an experienced Wikipedia administrator. Some were better at hiding their activities than others, with certain editors responsible for a trail of blocked accounts. Elance is just one of many e-commerce sites through which this sort of business is being transacted.
I've been grappling with a couple of questions since:
How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024
"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023
The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023
Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022
The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022
Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022
Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021
Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021
Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021
Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021
A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021
Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020
How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020
Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020
Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020
WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020
Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020
Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020
Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020
Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020
Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020
Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020
2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020
English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019
Women's history month
31 March 2019
Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018
Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017
Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015
Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015
Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015
Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015
Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015
A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015
Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015
Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015
Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014
PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014
Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014
Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014
Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014
WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013
PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013
Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012
Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012
Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012
Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010
License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006
Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006
Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006
German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005
So what is wrong with paid editing? The first thing we are risking is our reputation. Wikipedia is seen as an independent source. If companies and individuals can pay to have content written about them, their businesses, or their products, we are no longer independent. In October 2013, after the Wiki-PR revelations, the Wikimedia Foundation published a press release stating that undisclosed paid editing "violates numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest" and "is prohibited by our Terms of Use." Jimmy Wales has similarly stated that "he is opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space".
The next and more difficult question is if we disapprove of this activity, can we do anything about it?
The issue of link spamming appears to be fairly straightforward to address. A specific page has been set up to list all edits that remove a dead-link tag. This allows verification that spam-links are not being added as a replacement—a frequent tactic of spammers. Discussions are ongoing with respect to using WebCite to solve the dead-link issue once and for all. The owner is interested in having us take over its management, but I have been unable to determine whether the movement is interested in taking it on. One of the companies involved in adding links to Wikipedia articles, WikiLinkPro, is using the Wikipedia logo to promote itself, so WMF Legal and Community Affairs may consider addressing what appears to be breach of our logo trademark.
The issue of those who are paid to write articles about individuals and companies is harder to address. This editing is usually done through "disposable" accounts, and even if discovered, the content is sometimes kept. Thus we are left to presume that the person behind the account is still paid for their work. Although there has been talk of loosening up our attitudes towards disclosed paid editing, it's likely that for most of those involved, the incentives are less than the hazards of losing their anonymity. It would mostly just expose their work to greater scrutiny, as currently much of the time it goes undetected, which those who are attempting to promote individuals and companies prefer.
One of FergusM1970's last comments on Wikipedia was an offer to detect paid editors for a fee, seemingly oblivious to the irony of this. His suggested method would have been to patrol the major sites and request that they take down Wikipedia-related jobs. The policies of two of the larger websites in question do not allow jobs that violate the terms of service of other websites.[1] I emailed them inquiring about this possibility and they agreed to take down the first user I reported. Now to look at doing this on a larger scale.
Another possible measure would be to keep a list of sockmasters known to be involved in paid editing, regularly run CheckUser on their accounts to identify further socks, and delete their additions. Other methods could comprise posting fake jobs on these sites to identify people offering editing services; however, this could be viewed as dishonest and thus likely not the best idea. How long this approach would be effective is unclear, as those involved would probably figure out ways to avoid detection. We could also look at efforts to generate bad press for the individuals and companies who use these services. The media, however, would likely get bored of this type of story.
So who are their customers? According to FergusM1970, some of his clients included academic Jerome Katz, composer Tony Succar, Derwick Associates, the Institute of Cosmetic and Laser Surgery, and the Ventura Film Festival.[2] About half of the issues I detected had already been dealt with, the accounts either being blocked or the content deleted. Whether that is good or bad I'm unsure. The cases I've picked up are likely the easier ones to detect, such as this obviously promotional addition to the article for the airline SpiceJet: "SpiceJet has overhauled its network starting March 30, 2014. The new Summer Schedule focuses on the most important aspect of travel - you." I have a much longer list; however, I need to first clarify whether providing this evidence on Wikipedia is allowed under the Foundation's terms of use and the English Wikipedia's policies.
This is not the first time that Wikipedia has come across an extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy. The Signpost reported in October 2013 that "An investigation by the English Wikipedia community into suspicious edits and sockpuppet activity has led to astonishing revelations that Wiki-PR, a multi-million-dollar US-based company, has created, edited, or maintained several thousand Wikipedia articles for paying clients using a sophisticated array of concealed user accounts."
A year and a half later, it is clear that neither the Foundation nor the English Wikipedia has worked out how to address this issue. The first account associated with Wiki-PR, Morning277, appeared during my recent investigations, suggesting that they may still be in business.
While disclosed paid editing is a lesser issue, it is not a panacea. The problem I have with disclosed paid editing is that it often turns the attention of the core community from working on articles of higher importance to ones of lower importance. For example, editor BlackCab previously engaged in disclosed paid editing on the article A2 milk, which resulted in much greater involvement than the subject deserves. IMS Health, Alexion Pharmaceuticals via Havas Lynx Medical, GlaxoSmithKline, and others are interested in providing this sort of service for their clients or themselves. While we can handle some, Wikiproject Medicine does not have the ability to handle hundreds of daily requests.
Over the last few weeks I have looked for interest in dealing with the dozens of clandestine paid editors I have stumbled on. Is anyone willing to take on the issue of paid editing? Even though the Foundation does not allow undisclosed paid editing, it is unclear who is supposed to enforce this and what mechanisms we have to detect it. The WMF's community advocacy team informed me that they do not have the staff to take this on and hopes the community will become involved in enforcement. The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee feels that they have no role in handling paid advocacy at this point in time—paid editing is not prohibited by policy, as they responded to me by email.
On-wiki remedies are hampered by our community policies. It is currently unclear if an editor is allowed to openly discuss specific cases on the encyclopedia. Our conflict of interest guideline may state that editors should "not edit Wikipedia in the interests of your external relationships", but the outing policy takes precedence, and it does not clarify if we are allowed to link to external sites suspected of being involved in paid advocacy. An request for comment seeking to clarify one aspect of this issue is ongoing here.
So is Wikipedia for sale? Unfortunately, the answer currently appears to be yes—but we can and should change this.
- The views expressed in these op-eds are those of the authors only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section. Editors wishing to submit their own op-ed should email the Signpost's editor.
Notes
- ^ For example, the terms of service of oDesk.
- ^ FergusM1970 provided a partial client list on his user page and admitted to paid editing for Derwick Associates in a lengthy thread on WP:ANI.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/In focus
Slamming shut the GamerGate
I had hoped to ease into this new role, but alas I seem to have picked the worst time of year to start reporting on the Arbitration Committee's business! I thought I had a good appreciation of the arbitrators' workload, but I now have an entirely new grasp of just how many pages they have to monitor and how closely. There are case requests, clarification requests, and motions—at least two of which are permanently near the top of my watchlist (a watchlist which includes plenty of busy pages)—the committee noticeboard and its talk page, and then there are the open cases—each with their evidence and workshop pages (and their respective talk pages!). That's before we even consider the various private mailing lists to which we mere mortals are not privy. The number of rabbits of which to keep track is dizzying.
This has been another busy fortnight for the committee. At the time of writing, one case has been closed, two cases remain open, another is undergoing a review, and four clarification or amendment requests remain open. Additionally, the committee has been attending to various other business including housekeeping motions and the beginning of a round of functionary appointments.
This fortnight's business
Cases
After two months, the GamerGate case, the largest and most complex in recent memory finally reached its conclusion shortly before the publication of last week's Signpost. That issue's "In focus" covered the case in detail, but to summarise: ArbCom has authorised discretionary sanctions for the broad topic area of "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] (c) any persons associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The intent of this is to prevent disruption from this dispute spreading to similar topics. It also gives administrators broad powers to impose blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions on any editor who does not behave appropriately after being made aware of the discretionary sanctions. In addition, 13 individual editors were sanctioned, with sanctions ranging from admonishments to topic bans (with the same scope as the discretionary sanctions) and a single siteban (passed at the last moment due to continuing disruption).
The case attracted media attention in its final stages, and since its closure has been the subject of lengthy and heated discussion on the talk page of the committee's noticeboard. According to the Washington Post, "when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (basically the site's Supreme Court), issued a final ruling on Gamergate on Wednesday, they weren't merely slapping the wrists of the bickering few still obsessed with 'ethics in video games'; rather, the decision was a highly visible test of whether the Web site that millions of people turn to for facts can actually present facts in a fair and neutral way." The Post article, which was illustrated with a screenshot of the warning notices at the top of the GamerGate talk page, accurately pointed out that ArbCom's ruling were not on GamerGate itself or the content of the relevant Wikipedia article, but rather on the behaviour of the editors involved and likened arbitrators to "referees at a particularly brutal soccer game: They can dish out red cards and penalties to individual players, but they don't actually decide which side should win". (For more on the Post's article, please see In the media.)
Meanwhile, the article is being heavily edited, its lengthy spell of full protection (locking so that only administrators can edit) having recently come to an end. Arbitrator Roger Davies told the Signpost last week that he expected it would be a "week or two" before the effects of the decision started to be fully felt. Further developments will be reported in the "News and Notes" and "In the media" sections in coming weeks.
At press time, the arbitrators' proposed decision in this case was expected imminently. The workshop phase officially concluded on 30 January, though some discussion is still going on. This is not nearly so large a case as GamerGate, so arbitrators and clerks seem less concerned with closing off discussions (in the GamerGate case, parties added evidence and workshop proposals minutes before the deadline, forcing the deadlines to be extended to allow other parties to respond to allegations against them, and the pages had to be fully protected to enforce the revised deadlines). The case concerns allegation which have been floating around for a year now, namely that Wifione has been conducting a subtle but persistent campaign to promote an Indian business school and to denigrate its competitors, including by manipulating biographical articles of people associated with the institutions. Extensive evidence has been presented by half a dozen editors, and Wifione has presented a five-thousand-word rebuttal. In the workshop, several editors have made proposals, all of which revolve around different levels of restrictions and sanctions for Wifione, with the exception of Wifione's own proposals, which advocate for sanctions against several editors making the allegations. The target date for the proposed decision is 5 February.
This is another large case regarding sexuality, which appears to be the hot-button topic on the wiki at the moment. Although a dozen parties are listed, the evidence phase was due to close at the time of writing, yet only five editors had presented evidence. Despite the apparently broad scope of the case, the parties appear to be primarily concerned with litigating on a long-running edit war on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, although the issues appear to have spread to some extent to similar articles about other denominations. The workshop is open until 11 February, and the proposed decision is due on 18 February.
This is a slightly unorthodox case. The original Infoboxes case was litigated in the middle of 2013 and closed in September of that year. The main party to the case, Pigsonthewing was prohibited from "adding or removing infoboxes". Since then, there have been multiple enforcement requests surrounding Pingsonthewing's participation at Templates for Discussion and in other fora regarding the technical implementation of infoboxes; these in turn have led to multiple clarification requests due to what many editors felt was the ambiguous wording of the remedy. The latest request suggested resolving the perceived ambiguity by adding the word "to articles" to the end of the remedy, but arbitrators failed to reach a decision on this request. To break the stalemate, a review has been opened to answer the question of whether the remedy is fit for purpose. Evidence is being accepted until 10 February.
Four request for clarification or amendment were open at the time of writing:
- A request from Lightbreather for an interaction ban with Hell in a Bucket, arising from the Interactions at GGTF case,
- A clarification request regarding arbitration enforcement arising from the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case (specifically on the extent to which administrators can act unilaterally in imposing sanctions); this appears to have become bogged down in the minutiae of enforcement procedures and the difference between the enforcement of specific remedies (e.g., topic bans, imposed by ArbCom as a direct result of a case) and discretionary sanctions (authorised by ArbCom but imposed by any uninvolved administrator),
- A request from Cambalachero for several articles to be exempted from their topic ban from Latin American subjects (imposed in the Argentine History case; arbitrators appear to be receptive to the request, and a motion has been proposed that would allow the exemption but allow it to be revoked by an uninvolved administrator in the event of misconduct; the motion has 13 arbitrators in support and none in opposition and so is likely to be enacted before the next "Arbitration report";
- A request from Mythdon to lift restrictions imposed in the 2009 Ryulong case (unrelated to the GamerGate case, to which Ryulong was also a party).
Other business
- Cases renamed: "Dbachmann" has been renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy in order to fit the convention that cases with active discretionary sanction provisions are not named after an individual editor; and "Footnoted quotes" has been renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons for clarity, given that the previous title belied the fact that the case authorises the broadest set of discretionary sanctions so far authorised.
- Landmark Worldwide sanctions: The Landmark Worldwide case was amended by motion to authorise discretionary sanctions for the topic area.
- BASC RfC: A request for comment has been opened regarding the Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) and includes various proposals, including removing responsibility for ban appeals from ArbCom and placing it with a panel of administrators.
- Fancy becoming a clerk? The Arbitration Committee clerks are still seeking new recruits; interested editors are asked to email the clerks' mailing list (clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org).
- Functionary appointments: For the first time since 2013, ArbCom is inviting applications for checkuser and oversight access; because of the nature of the information such tools give access to, candidates must (inter alia) be over the age of 18, provide proof of identity to the Wikimedia Foundation, and be an administrator. Expressions of interest are currently being sought, and candidates will be required to complete a questionnaire and return it by the end of 17 February (UTC), after which there will be an extensive vetting process with the aim of appointing successful candidates by the end of March.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Humour