Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-10-01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-10-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Mooned (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Featured content

News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners (13,050 bytes · 💬)

Further news to hand just after Signpost publication:

  • The Telegraph has published a new story, "Wikipedia charity faces investigation over trustee 'conflict of interest' ", including a caption to a photograph of Jimmy Wales: "Co-founder Jimmy Wales said the frequency of Gibraltar-related material on the front page of Wikipedia was 'absurd' ".
  • A statement has been posted by John Cummings at a Gibralterpedia sub-page, that he and Roger Bamkin have signed an agreement with the Government of Gibraltar to run the GibraltarpediA project.

Tony (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

On Jimbo's talk page, I have been discussing the Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia memoranda of understanding (MOU) with current WMUK Trustee John Bryne (User:Johnbod). This discussion has been going on for almost a week.

  • I was first told that there was no MOU being negotiated between WMUK and the government of Gibraltar as I had stated. Note that WMUK Chair Chris Keating stated the following in a 21 September blog post: "we have long intended to give more formal support to this project; before we can do so we would need a clear memorandum of understanding with the Government of Gibraltar setting out shared aims and objectives, and we are working on such a document".
  • When I asked with whom the Gibraltarpedia was being negotiated if not the government of Gibraltar, I was told that no such agreement had been discussed for months.
  • When I pointed out that John had himself had been present at a WMUK meeting earlier this month where Roger Bamkin made a presentation about Gibraltarpedia and discussed a draft MOU that he hoped to have finalized, John told me that he would have to "look into it".
  • After consulting three other people, John told me "I am trying to establish if anyone at WMUK has had the draft Roger refers too" although it is noted on the WMUK web site as being "available with board papers". This document was described by Roger Bamkin as an "updated copy of an MOU that Chris abnd I discussed", so presumably an earlier version of this MOU exists even if not circulated to the board.
  • During the course of this discussion, I discovered that a video (File:Signing_of_memorandum_of_understanding.ogv) described in part as "This video shows Roger Bamkin, Trustee of Wikimedia UK, introducing the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between Wikimedia UK and Monmouthshire County Council" had been uploaded in April by WMUK staff member Stevie Benton. Roger was employed by MCC as a consultant by this time and the MOU was signed by then-Chair Ashley van Haeften (User:Fæ). Roger's recollection is that he was described in this document as a "member of the steering committee".
  • Thus far, I have been unable to get clear answers on the status of either MOU. Despite the video of the signing, there are still references to an MOU with the MCC being negotiated (although this may refer to a separate MOU for future projects like "Chepstowpedia"). I have yet to get an answer as to the availability of the MOUs to the public or to the members of WMUK.

Any investigation of activities of WMUK would be negligent if it did not also look at the actions of the board and individual Trustees following Roger's resignation. They do not appear to understand that it is in the best interests of the charity and Wikipedia to quickly address any questions that may lead to further speculation in the media or in the community. Being less that open and honest will only reinforce the impression that all is not well in WMUK. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    • I am replying to the points above at my talk page here Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • John, it is unfortunate that you were unable to reply just a few hours sooner. The discussion we were having on Jimbo's talk page has been automatically archived while awaiting your reply. That discussion can now be found here, but of course your reply is not part of that archive. I will quote it below so that that readers of this discussion will see exactly how far you have managed to get since we started discussing this over a week ago.

        Apologies for the delay. I was incorrect to say (the section is now archived here) that no MOU was being negotiated with Gibraltar, and have located what I believe is the latest draft. This was mentioned, and approved in principle, at the September 8th Board Meeting, where I was present, but the text was not discussed to any degree, and it was not in the printed Board papers, although it was emailed to the Board list on September 1st. The draft I have is a Google document that has a number of comments on it and was most recently commented on on September 4th. It is not available on the public WMUK wiki, and is a draft in progress, which to my eyes needs work. It seems to have been overtaken by events, & I can't get a clear view as to whether it will be proceeded with in the future. The parties are WMUK & a representative of a department of the Gibraltar government (not Tourism), and the text covers "management arrangements" for what it says is not a partnership. As to the Monmouth questions you added on October 2nd, I am not going to start on those because the signing on May 19 this year was exactly a week after I was elected a Trustee, and I was not involved in discussions of the document. All these matters are going to be within the scope of the expert being appointed to do the WMUK governance review, & I think they are now best left for that review. I've replied on the Gibraltar points because I intervened in that discussion, not very accurately I'm afraid, & needed to correct my earlier comment. I'm sorry it took so long, and for my less than total recall. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

        John, I understand that you were a very new Trustee when the Monmouthpedia MOU was signed, but I am not asking about the history. What is the status of that MOU, how is Roger described in that MOU, and is it available to the public or to WMUK members? Those are very simple questions and I would appreciate an answer. Whether or not this will be covered by the independent investigation does not seem relevant. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Please stop moving this discussion around. I am not going to start responding here. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
          • John, the recent news stories relating to Gibraltarpedia have tarnished the reputations of Wikipedia, WMUK, and the WMF. Whether or not you believe that there was any wrongdoing involved, it should be very clear that many editors are concerned by how this looks to the general public. One would think that you would want people to know the basic facts of the matter rather than relying on speculation or misreported summaries, but I think it would be difficult for anyone to read through our discussions and not get the impression that you are being far less helpful than you could be. My questions are not "gotcha" questions - they are simple inquiries about agreements negotiated by the WMUK board. You are a Trustee of a registered UK charity whose "core values" include being "transparent and open". You have refused to answer my questions here, and on your talk page you suggest moving the conversation to the WMUK wiki (which seems odd since you characterize my attempts to keep this discussion together as "moving this discussion around"). I am sure your actions will be noted by the independent reviewer, the media, and the Wikipedia community. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
                • If you want a reply to this post it to my talk or the water-cooler. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • John, you know what the questions are, but if you want me to jump through hoops to get a reply, I will. I have posted on your talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
                    • Johnbod has posted answers to some of my questions on his talk page and I thank him for that. In part his reply says "All I know is that there is a draft on the office wiki, which is a PDF of an unsigned document, described as not approved by the board. The draft lists the signatories as: a Monmouth County Council person, the then WMUK chair, and finally Roger Bamkin as "Wikimedia UK Trustee and Steering Group representative"; no individuals are mentioned in the text. It was uploaded May 30th 2012". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Carbuncle, with all due respect, you *do* seem to be going after a "gotcha" situation here. I have been following this closely, but think trying to drag John in is pushing it. He has explained himself satisfactiory to my mind, Im not sure how constructive bleeding out this paricular thread anymore might be. Ceoil (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil, I made a statement on Jimbo's talk page that WMUK had been negotiating an MOU with the government of Gibraltar, which was an assumption on my part based on what I had read. John started our discussion by coming to Jimbo's talk page and telling me that my statement was incorrect, which prompted me to ask who the MOU parties were. I did not drag John into this, he invited himself. As it turns out, WMUK is negotiating an MOU with the government of Gibraltar. John is a Trustee of WMUK and made an incorrect statement on a very widely read page - it is to his benefit that that error has been corrected before the independent investigation. There is no "gotcha" aspect to these questions - they are requests for facts that should be rather easy for a WMUK Trustee to obtain. I do not think that John has done himself any favours with how he handled this, but the questions themselves are innocuous. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of what you mean, it definitely appears that you want the 'gotcha' situation. It's obviously your choice on whether to actually back off or not, but I'm just making sure you see what the perception from the outside is. Perception, in some ways, is the only thing that actually matters. If readers really would like to know more, there are links above for them to follow; I don't think we need subsequent commenting here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
What was the "gotcha" for John in answering my questions? To be frank, I am surprised that I am the only one who seems to be (publicly) asking questions. I am more surprised, however, that the WMUK has not made more of an effort to "clear their name", as it were, with the community by providing as much detail as possible. Many media reports have stated or implied that Roger Bamkin was involved with paid editing. This is simply not the case, as paid editing is generally defined. It is in the best interest of WMUK to be as open as possible about the actual circumstances to dispel speculation. I think that a very public discussion of what went on is the best way to prevent a future episode of the same sort (from WMUK or any other chapter) and I will continue to comment if there is anything to add. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales (34,370 bytes · 💬)

  • It's high time we had a policy on paid editing. The topic just keeps on coming up, again and again, mostly in situations that cast an unfavorable light on Wikipedia. As Jimbo has pointed out - it is outsiders, mostly the press - that enforces the "rules" against paid editing. Why shouldn't we have our own rules and enforce them ourselves?
I'll suggest the simplest possible policy on paid editing with just 3 parts A. Define paid editing. B. Mandate disclosure, e.g. on the userpage. C. Prohibit paid editors from editing Policy pages, including Policy talkpages, without additional disclosure there. Can anybody realistically disagree with that? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean "policy pages", or was the intent to refer to pages where they have a COI? - Bilby (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely mean Policy pages - any paid editor has a COI when discussing policy, e.g. "Will this policy affect my earning a living here?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable with that idea, then, in that as a community I'd be loathe to prohibit anyone from having an equal say in issues such as policy. But I guess that would be an issue for the community to ponder. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you really want every corporation in the world to be able to buy a seat (or however many seats they want) at the policy discussion table? That would in effect mean that no individual non-paid editor would have an "equal say" and that corporations could rewrite all Wikipedia policy. We should just tell all paid editors and their employers, point blank and once and for all, that they don't get to make policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is where the problems of terminology come into play. I fully agree that it would be a very bad idea if corporate interests determined the direction of our policy, and I'd also hate to see people taking a stance in policy discussions based on what they are told to by those interests. So yes, I fully agree with you there. The problem is that "paid editors" covers everything from the extreme "paid to edit Wikipedia solely to advance the interests of a company" down. And while I agree with you about one end of the spectrum, I think there's this huge grey area that needs to be waded through, which probably encompasses the majority of paid editors. If someone engages in policy discussion as an individual, then that seems like a good thing, whether or not they have conflicts on interests in other parts of Wikipedia. But if they engage in policy discussion as a representative of a company, then that is bad. Yet how do we distinguish the first from second? It just feels like a messy problem. :) So I guess I would rather err on the side of inclusionism, and trust to the consensus process. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
That's where part A) comes into play. If we define "paid editing" in a reasonable way, most folks will have nothing to worry about, and we'll have eliminated the most common objection to paid editing rules. The definition I'll suggest is a) there has to be monetary pay (or something quite close to it), b) there has to be an employer who has some control over the editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Small, I would love to work together with you and other editors to put together a proposed policy or guideline on paid advocacy, however if editors feel uncomfortable about it, I'll just pass. Corporate 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to - it might take until next week until I have the time. I'd also like to start this in it's embryo stage with the assumption that contributors are not irrevocably opposed to paid editing rules and would like to keep them as limited as possible. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You tell me when and I'm all over it. I would prefer only to be involved in early discussions and draft space as I have strong opinions and too much involvement from me will be seen as lobbying. It is not unlike how the government consults the private sector before passing regulations - where those commercial entities have a point-of-view that is valuable, but they should not be overly aggressive nor do they write the regulations themselves. A collaboration with someone on my side of things is important, because ultimately the guideline or policy should present a compelling argument for companies to do things the right way. Corporate 19:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "WP:BLP applies to corporations, which are just collections of people." This is wrong. BLP doesn't apply to groups in any meaningful sense. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, ..." Whatever your view on the concept of "legal person", you cannot disagree that the owners, executives, and employees are people. So that if an article says "Joe Blow, CEO of Blowhardt, Inc, ..." WP:BLP applies there. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Q: Have any paid or COI editors made positive contributions to the project? A: I'm sure some have, but I fail to see any relevance to this question." I usually see eye to eye with Jimmy, but here I have to say "until you see the relevance of this question, you are missing a major issue here." The fact that paid editors can add meaningful content means they should not be shot on sight. It's as simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point Piotrus. And failing to address that fact is why the issue will continue to fester. IMHO, Wales is the biggest roadblock in resolving this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely scandalous to conflate the unnecessary brouhaha over Gibraltarpedia with paid editing as the lede here does. And it is ridiculous to say that ethical, paid consultancy (which I undertake) is incompatible with either good editing or a neutral encyclopedia; and naive in the extreme to imagine that it will not continue to be offered, and sought by organisations wanting to understand Wikipedia. I'm curious how it can be OK to be paid for a year's work as a Wikipedian in a museum, but not a day's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe Ocaasi is referring to the media attention, which broadly (if inaccurately) focused on paid editing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I did find the article introduction misleading, since it implies that Jimmy Wales was going to comment on the particular situation of Roger Bamkin, since it does at least seem like a case that blurs that bright line. Even if in Jimmy's view it does not blur that line, it does at least give the appearance of blurriness. Overall, this was a good chance for Jimmy to explain himself, even if I think his views on this matter differ from the majority of Wikipedians and official Wikipedia policy (I admit that my view of the opinions of the majority of Wikipedians may differ from Jimmy's). Jztinfinity (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I assume that the co-founder will have a slot in this series too, if he chooses to use it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a great interview. I agree completely with Jimbo's views here (especially the distinction between paid editing and paid advocacy). Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A paying client has never asked me to edit, and no past client has ever paid me to edit. I have edited several friends' and acquaintances' articles, for free, and have disclosed that potential COI in my user space or a talk page of a pro bono client. However, if and when that time comes, I would disclose that I was editing a paying client's article, and continue editing. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ...is it just me or did he completely avoid the question about Wikiproject Cooperation and CREWE? Kinda rude. :/ SilverserenC 23:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so a paid editor who proposes a noncontroversial edit rather than directly making the change and gets no response should take the time to "escalate to the appropriate place". Sounds reasonable. Other than starting with a post to Jimbo's talk page, what would be the appropriate place? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering your Talk page! But seriously, Jimbo's Talk is the last resort.
  • The best next step is the official {{Edit request}} template which alerts the WP:IRC helpers (in their defence, in my experience, the edit requests that get slow responses are often too long, too complicated, too unsourced, too POV, too angry, or tend to go against local consensus - which means Dispute Resolution should have been engaged instead).
  • After that, the next step is at the Project(s) Talk page(s), since Project level editors might not have a particular article watched, but will watch the Project.
  • I'm a fan of Editing assistance as well, some editors watch there. I think paid editors should follow at least these escalation steps, and should understand that there are volunteers behind the scenes who may be leery of helping a paid editor achieve some goal, even though it seems at the moment benign. So edit requests should be short, NPOV, worded non-promotionally, and sourced independently and reliably, at a minimum. --Lexein (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ocaasi has created WP:COI+, which outlines best procedures to take and the time limit users should give before moving onto the next step. SilverserenC 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, I forgot COI+. Deadlines: 48 hours is too short, and I disagree with DIY after one month. Otherwise, it's fine. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think 48 hours is too short to wait for a talk page response. If there's no response by then, I don't see what's wrong with then asking at a higher level, aka the relevant noticeboards. And if no response has been had after a month and following all the steps properly...well, then, Wikipedia has failed at that point. But I really don't see it coming to that, not if the steps are done properly. SilverserenC 06:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of the above discussion is about controversial edits, which is worth discussing, but my question concerns completely noncontroversial edits. Let's say you were hired by Acme Corporation (Motto: "We specialize in trapping Road Runners") to edit Wikipedia and you are limiting yourself to talk page comments. Then a vandal replaces the content of the page with "ACMEE PRODUKS IS DEFETCIVE!!!!!" (which, BTW, they clearly are). Do you stay behind that bright line or do you revert? What if you notice that the phone number is listed as 555-1243 followed by a citation giving the correct number (555-1234)? Do you stay behind that bright line or do you correct the obvious error and drop a note on the talk page explaining who you are and what you did? What if the vandalism or error stays up for days or months and nobody responds to your talk page comments? Even our bright-line three-revert rule has exceptions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Important question - I think that's a legitimate response, but it does potentially give a figleaf to PR people who might want to call something vandalism when it's just something they don't like. To put it another way - it turns the "bright line" into a "fine line", which we'd rather avoid. Is there a useful distinction that doesn't result in instruction creep? (Probably not.) How about (A) some sort of {{help, vandal!}} template that flags the page for immediate attention, similar to {{help me}} on talk pages, and/or (B) allowing reversion of vandalism (once only, no edit warring) if an appropriate template is placed on the talk page (again, one that flags the page for immediate attention). But... I think I've just suggested more instruction creep. *shrug*
My approach where I had a conflict of interest (on the Appropedia article), when no one was responding on the talk page and I didn't know about other options or the "bright line" proposal, was to make the edits myself and explain on the talk page. (That was a case of actually making the article less promotional and more encyclopedic, so I felt it was uncontroversial - I suggested other edits on the talk page where it was less clear-cut. But it wasn't actual vandalism or error, so a {{help, vandal!}} template wouldn't have been appropriate - if I'd known about "appropriate places" to escalate, I would have done so, linking to a userspace page showing the changes I wanted to make.) --Chriswaterguy talk 23:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for help on finding the "appropriate places" (responding to Guy Macon, Lexein, Silver seren). WP:COI+ is a great idea. Jimbo seems to imply that it's not hard for someone to get help, which reminds me of smart IT people who say that Linux is easy.
I think a friendly {{welcome-pr}} template would be very useful for putting on the talk pages of people with a potential COI, letting them know their options and letting them know constructive ways to engage. We could add a link to the standard notice on talk pages - that notice is already TL;DR, but a link for COI issues is important. --Chriswaterguy talk 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. We need a bright line. Wikipedia needs to maintain its independence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "(To be clear, there are a few people who argue in favor of that, but their arguments are so implausible that it is difficult to take them seriously.)" Similarly, Jimbo's arguments that we should simply disallow people - including those who have shown themselves to be reliable and respected members of our community - from editing in such a situation are so "implausible that it is difficult to take them seriously." Not to mention irrational. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's a question I'd be curious to hear someone from the anti-paid-editing side answer: any time a highly partisan person edits a Wikipedia article about a controversial political topic - which happens all the time - there's a conflict of interest there, between the person's obligation to improve the article and their desire to have the article reflect their view of things. How is editing an article to make a politician you love look good, or one you hate look bad, different, from either an ethical or pragmatic point of view, from editing for money? In other words, why should politically-involved people be allowed to edit political articles? (Assuming they should.) Yaron K. (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Sinclair Lewis. There's hope of having a reasonable discussion with somebody of strong political beliefs. There's little or no hope of having a reasonable discussion with somebody who has to make a particular edit in order to keep his job and make the mortgage payment. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Good question, Yaron. But, I've another. Where, exactly, is the Editorial Independence of The Signpost?
      • None is evident. The Signpost gives every indication of being a platform for its editors to push their PoV; to promote the viewpoints and ideology of their on-wiki friends.
        I don't expect an in-house magazine to be unbiased, but I do expect people be granted a right-to-reply. Don't see this being offered to Andy Roger over Gibraltarpedia, as-opposed to an interview with Jimmy where the questions are slanted to condemn the good work Andy's Roger's done. And, I still recall with some animosity the way The Signpost fawned over a fork of Wikinews which is now consigned to the dustbin.
        There's a great deal more people should be concerned with other than people actually putting food on the table whilst working full-time on improving Wikipedia. But, I do have to congratulate the editors of The Signpost on helping to hound a trustee out of a UK-based charity; that Andy Roger stood down is a testament to his moral values; but, the way I, repeatedly, see The Signpost approach issues is one I'm more-used to from The Daily Mail or Murdoch press. --Brian McNeil /talk 04:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • You're thinking of Roger Bamkin; I've taken the liberty of amending your post accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Where did this attack come from, Brian? I personally feel that we were very even-handed with the Bamkin story; we worked with him while crafting the story and certainly gave a much fairer story than the regular media. In addition, the story was published before he resigned, so we played no part there. I'd need to see much more substantive evidence before taking action here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The requested edit page would be completely swamped if every company miraculously adhered to the proposed policy. Anyone who has ever worked WP:New page patrol knows this. Wales' offer to personally review every dispute on his talk page is an interesting one but not worthy of the founder's time. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This "bright line" is impossible to pin down precisely, and paid editing impossible to identify most of the time. While not disagreeing with Smallbones's initial comment, we should bear in mind that the new travel project is going to require some tough policy development and policing. Tony (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I recall DMOZ editors listing travel as the second most problematic category (pornographic paysites being the worst) for the same promoters self-servingly creating and submitting multiple versions of the same site. There are a huge number of middlemen selling travel and, for want of better justification of their costly existence, they self-promote incessantly. Certainly, WP:COI is a huge problem already... too often we see User:XYZ Company creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/XYZ Company and then complaining to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk that the "article" was declined a week later (the most frequently asked question, 'why was my (non-notable autobiography / corporate self-promotion) rejected as a Wikipedia article'). Our use of WP:WEASEL words like "lacks reliable sources" to establish "notability" (instead of outright "please stop advertising your company on Wikipedia" doesn't help. The templated responses all seem to end with "...but feel free to add more sources and re-submit this ten more times" or an equivalent for fear of biting a contributor, even if these are WP:SPA. The end result is that WP:AFC is backlogged more than a week on average and 80% of submissions are rejected (mostly autobiography or WP:CORP descriptions of non-notable firms). AFC is the tip of the iceberg; the same likely appears on new page patrol in mainspace and in too many existing articles. Telling User:XYZ Company to change to a different username per username policy and keep trying to submit content, with just a token request to add reliable sources to establish notability, is only perpetuating and camouflaging the problem. Keep these where we can see them, sure, but also keep in mind that while we're trying to WP:WEASEL our way out of WP:BITE-ing down on users repeatedly submitting advertising as content, this person's boss is likely telling them (not asking them) to keep submitting this so we need to be just as firm in saying "don't post advertising to Wikipedia" or the message is lost. It may even be necessary to systematically look through all of our existing articles on commercial companies, starting with the least-read and most-obscure ones, and methodically remove any which are solely laudatory, poorly-sourced or of questionable notability. That would be a huge task, but a fair amount of self-serving promotion has slipped under the radar over the years. K7L (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • COI editing doesn't depend on Jimmy's positions, but on much wider social dynamics. It existed, it exists and it will exist. Our only choice is to decide do we want to know for that or not. If we choose to leave it forbidden, paid editing underground will just become bigger, with all of the black market consequences. Oh, and we have the other choice, as well... --millosh (talk (meta:)) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo is entitled to his views. That being said, I find the idea of a man who accepts speaking fees as the public face of Wikipedia suggesting that others not be allowed to make money, if they can, from their involvement in the site deplorable. At least Avery Brundage had the good taste not to accept money for his Olympic involvement while urging amateurism on others.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Many thoughts: (1) Jimmy Wales' "Bright LIne" is a minority view, not a majority view, as recent RFC debates on paid editing have made clear. His assumption that a "Bright Line" essay page will be elevated to policy strikes me as an incorrect reading of the politics of WP. (2) Adoption of a "Bright Line" rule won't solve the question of paid editing on WP — given the anonymous status of most contributors, it will merely drive it underground. It is wrong to pretend this is some sort of magic bullet. (3) BLP does not apply to corporations, although there are common concerns with both. (4) Mr. Wales contradicts himself at the end when he states that paid COI editing (what he calls "Paid Advocacy") is never permissible in mainspace........... except under emergency situations. Never means never. Clearly, the community would overwhelmingly endorse the notion that it IS permissible in the case of vandalism or libel. So, there IS a line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" editing, no matter what... This isn't gonna be an issue solved in the "letters to the editor" section here, so I'll stop. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a shame that those wishing to damage the movement have had some success with their disinformation campaigns, nonetheless this, like most of the bumps on the road, is minor compared with the success of the project as a whole. As to paid editing, I think the principles of the project will withstand that, and indeed often have, turning it to good, along with the innumerable contributions from others with declared or undeclared COIs. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC).

Why has attention focused solely on the Gibraltar DYK push when those people apparently weren't even directly paid to edit? Tonight it has come to my attention that someone has been lining their pockets by creating rafts of articles that have been pushed through DYK's laughably uncritical and back-scratching process.

Paid editing will always go on under our noses. It's not against policy and can be beneficial to the project if controlled properly. What matters is the product (which we can control), not the circumstances of editing (which we can't). Among things we can easily do something about is significant and sustained DYK topic-skew on the main page, and it's becoming increasingly obvious that the cheap ride to main-page exposure needs to be scrutinised in the era of paid editing. Flooding is encouraged by DYK's rules for reviewing and promotion, and by the quite unnecessary focus on a hectic rate of promotion.

The odd paid GA or FA I don't mind if those forums do their job properly, since disclosure can't be mandated and there are advantages in improving our coverage and quality and in gaining access to otherwise unavailable expertise and knowledge. But DYK is currently far too easy to abuse en masse. DYK's raison d'etre of encouraging new editors has been subverted, and we are now paying the price. How long until the next damaging public scandal? Tony (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What was this other incident about? Is it being discussed somewhere? SilverserenC 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Tony, once and for all, are you a reporter or an advocate? I know you've had a bee in your bonnet for some time about DYK but when you make comments that DYK is "laughably uncritical and back-scratching", it's obvious that you're pushing your personal opinions. Likewise when on WT:DYK#Need to fix DYK topic balance you uncritically repeated Jimbo's uninformed claim about an "absurd" number of Gibraltar-related articles going through DYK, without even making any attempt to verify whether Jimbo is right. (He isn't.) What kind of reporter doesn't bother checking the facts before commenting? I'm getting increasingly uneasy at the prospect that Signpost reporting is being driven by personal agendas and POVs. I do think there is a serious problem of perception here; I've already been told by other editors that they have given up telling you about interesting things that are going on, because they don't think you will report them straight. You appear to be losing trust among the community. What do you propose to do about it? Prioryman (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Silver, I've also mentioned it at DYK talk, where you'd expect people would be concerned at the implications of shoving lots of articles you've been paid to create directly to the main page. But over at DYK it's a different planet, with quite different moral and ethical codes, it seems.

Prioryman, I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved at the Signpost's coverage of WMUK and Gibraltar, but all I do is report the facts and what other people say. We don't create the scandal—the chapter does. I work as part of a team, which vets each story. And last time I looked, contributing to the Signpost didn't render one ineligible to participate in en.WP discussions. Tony (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I really couldn't care less about editors being paid to make articles, DYK or otherwise. So long as the articles follow our rules and are neutral, then I really just don't care. If it's improving the encyclopedia, then that's all that matters. SilverserenC 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good paid editing is good editing For someone to tell the plain facts about their notable company or organization and support them by good references helps the encyclopedia and its readers. There is certainly not identity between their purposes and ours, but there is a sizable overlap. True, most paid editing is not good. but the problem is the bad editing ,regardless of cause. Bad paid editing has its characteristic faults, which are usually very easy to detect and remove. Paid editors work for money, and if bad editing is made unprofitable by being removed they will stop. We can help the process along by much greater willingness to delete somewhat promotional articles on borderline notable organizations. Amateurs and zealots are another matter: they will continue far beyond the point of rational returns on their effort. What we need to make certain of removing bad material is good editors to police new edits. That's a real problem. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying. In general I agree that the priority has always been to improve the encyclopedia, so the focus should be on content, rather than necessarily on how that content is produced. The problem is that over the last few months I've been looking at the freelance paid editor situation, and there is a general pattern that most of the people I've followed who are freelance paid editors are also showing problematic behaviours - socks, falsely representing their relationship to clients, damaging competitor's articles, copyvio, masking, and false referencing. The extent to which this is occuring is still something I'm going through the data to find, but I'm tending to feel that we can't just focus on the end product, and might need to also focus a bit more on how we get there. Which is not to say that there isn't good paid editing - just the the situation is messy, and, as we already know, a solution will be tricky. - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
As a paid political consultant, one could say that now I am paid to edit, yet 99.44 % of my edits are free so I am not a SPA. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty (14,783 bytes · 💬)

I've added a mention of Marlen. However, she's not mentioned anywhere on the WMF's site, although does come up on a google search in association with "Toolserver". I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Tony, thank you for your response. Clarification: Marlen works for WMDE, not WMF. I am going to make that correction in the article; hope the Signpost does not mind! Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
(Personal comment:) The current version is still somewhat misleading, as it implies that the Toolserver had no paid staff before October 2011. See e.g. http://journal.toolserver.org/ ("River becomes the first paid toolserver admin", February 5, 2010), Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-02-08/News_and_notes#Briefly or Jarry1250 April 2011 overview article "What is: the Toolserver?".
Also, a casual reader unfamiliar with the topic might take away the mistaken impression that Toolserver performance problems are an entirely new phenomenon. (As a small example from the Signpost itself, encountering Toolserver failure has long been a routine part of the Signpost's publication process.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not a new phenomenon, but it certainly has become more frequent in recent months. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
My impression from the emails on the TS mailing list were that those features wouldn't be functional until December, or mid-2013 at the earliest. This still doesn't address much of the concerns expressed by toolserver users, which I believe hinged on the ability to join the replicated databases with their own user databases. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
As Sumana said, stated goal for DB replication is Q1 of 2013, and we're looking into whether an earlier roll-out is feasible. So I'm not sure what your impression is based on. :-) Eloquence* 20:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I must have mis-read something or missed an email then. Apologies to Tony and Jarry for the bad info. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have corrected this in the article. Hope that's okay with you, Hersfold, and no worries, I'm sure worse mistakes have been made! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In general, as I noted on toolserver-l, I agree with Carl that we should find ways to support projects like the WP 1.0 assessment DB in Labs. The feature set of the Labs DB replication isn't final, and it's likely going to be iterative.

We'll host an IRC meeting soon that we'll broadcast to toolserver-l@ as well to allow for more discussion of requirements for tool labs (the phase of the labs project dedicated to supporting tools development) and to answer questions about how folks can use Labs today. In the meantime, there are usually folks hanging out on #wikimedia-labs on irc.freenode.net as well in case you have immediate questions.--Eloquence* 20:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Two comments as someone who uses some Toolserver tools heavily in dealing with spam:
  1. Whatever the outcome of all this, thank you Wikimedia Deutschland for subsidizing this great capability for the rest of us for so long!
  2. I believe the Foundation should fund and support the existing toolserver as long as necessary until Wikilabs is ready to replace it. (I'm also open to not replacing the toolserver -- whatever makes the best sense, I just want the tools)
Thanks also to all the tool developers around the world who've developed these useful tools, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've written several tools that aid maintenance work on Wikipedia, most notably in identifying uncategorized articles and extensive work with disambiguation. If I lose (1) Wikipedia database replication or (2) the ability to join my user database to the replicated database, all of that work is lost. All of it. I know that maintenance work is not glamorous or interesting to most Wikipedians, but it is nevertheless important. I hope that those who are making the decisions about keeping Toolserver viable during the interim and how to set up Wikimedia Labs take into account the role Toolserver plays in maintaining Wikipedia infrastructure. --JaGatalk 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we hear you, including on the user-DB-to-production-DB join issue. Our main concern is in coming up with an architecture that's reliable and performant, even when users do crazy things ;-). We'll post more details on the DB replication strategy in coming weeks, and as I noted above, will also organize open IRC sessions to dig more into some of the current use cases for tool developers. We'll post updates to toolserver-l.--Eloquence* 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • On a Toolserver related question, whatever happened to the Articles Created tool? The one where you could put in a user's name and it would list the articles (with or without redirects) that the user had created? It was really useful and I can't seem to find it anymore. SilverserenC 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It works for me (the link is "Articles created" under a user's contributions). Probably the link broke when TParis took over the tool from whoever. David1217 What I've done 02:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing which i have little bit hard to understand is that why the Toolserver need to be shutted down at all. The reasoning behind why to create the Labs is pretty solid, but answer for the question why The Labs and the Toolserver cant coexists is not. The key question in this is seems to be the SQL replication to the outside world. If WMF takes it away then there is no future for anything like Toolserver at all. Period. Alternative vision could be that in the future besides the Labs there could be multiple instances of independent [tool]servers working with replicated data. The current TS could be used as prototype for this. Reasoning for independent systems would be that even when the Labs system is fully operational it can't ever be used for everything. One limiting thing is licence policy, one cannot use the closed source in the labs, second is that even the Labs horsepower is considerable it is not unlimited and suitable for everything. One can prefer to use specialized computing for him/her own needs. --Zache (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have direct, personal experience of the utility of the Toolserver for creating content on the projects (Wikisource, in particular). Whatever the engineering considerations, I'm certainly concerned that the approach taken doesn't seem driven by free content. Does seem "more of the same" with the "cool" stuff. I.e. the cart gets put before the horse. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The Toolserver is an essential tool. If it is underfunded by either WMDE or WMF, I would say those organisations have dropped the ball. This is especially true because those organisations have plenty of money, a lot of which they spend for more and more bureaucratic overhead. They should think hard about maintaining the Toolserver in an adequate way. I would like to point out that the Toolserver and the tools on it are also powerful projects that give reason to participate as donor in the donation campaign. Longbow4u (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Setting aside any question of how this mess arose or how to fix it, it is clear that once Labs is able to support the tools, there will still be a significant time needed (presumably in some part by the tool owners) to migrate them from Toolserver to Labs (or perhaps some other infrastructure), to test them on the new infrastructure, verify they work at least as well as before, then bring them into general use. It seems braindead obvious that we need the Toolserver to continue functioning until this is accomplished. Killing Toolserver at the end of 2012, months in advance of even starting the port to Labs is absolutely ass-backwards. It should get the necessary support to keep it going until all the tools are moved and working on Labs. Where are the discussions on scheduling these moves? All I've seen so far are vague pronouncements about when Labs will be running, not when the tools will be. So, WMF, be prepared to have a large number of supremely upset users if this doesn't get sorted out. Do what it takes so that WMDE have the means and motivation to keep TS going until it is no longer needed.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone's suggested killing the Toolserver in 2 months' time. Perhaps you meant the end of 2013 instead? I guess the assumption is that there if things like DB replication arrive on time, most tool owners will have multiple months to migrate (I'm not suggesting that's a long time, just being factual; you can make up your own mind :) ) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, the thread here seems to say the active support will end 30 December 2012, and realistically forecasts some TBD thing will fail not long after that. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are interpreting the statement "Toolserver will not end early next year. Period. Wikimedia Deutschland will make all necessary investments to keep the Toolserver up and running" as "the active support will end 30 December 2012"? Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
DaB (main admin of toolserver) said that if toolserver doesn't get proper support (new hardware so that they can handle the growth) then he will resign at end of the year. Pavel answered that Wikimedia Deutschland will make all necessary investments to keep the Toolserver up and running, but it seems that means something like the replacement parts because toolserver is going to be replaced by Labs. This however is not enough to handle current situation of the toolserver. --Zache (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond (820 bytes · 💬)

Congrats to the Bond project! I had no idea our articles on Bond novels were so thorough and high quality; well done! :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I did, but that's only because I had the pleasure of doing a Good Article Nomination review on one of the articles Schrodinger's cat is alive penned. Glad to see him and his compatriots getting the recognition they deserve. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2012-10-01&oldid=1125229706"