Wikimedia-l: Paid editing vs Paid advocacy editing

[HRIP7]

Currently ongoing discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, in the wake of Sarah Stierch's dismissal.

My impression of that discussion is that the community soundly rejects Jimmy Wales' bright line rule. Participants from smaller projects in particular, such as Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedia, bluntly state things like the following:

WMSE actively encourage our old heritage instituion to let their
employees write articles on runestones etc as part of their paid
employment. The community is very positive to the publishing companies
who write excellent articles on the authors they publish books from. We
accept that most articles of organizations and companies are written by
persons employed by these. Here we have to work with them to get the
fluff and promotion out of the articles, but see this as part of getting
valuable content

Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit (T-C-L)) opines,

I think it would be good to make and
explicit, ostensive bright line, like Jimbo suggested - I just think the
line should be elsewhere.

Paid editing, when done according to the rules, and when subjected to
transparent community control, is definitely better than a system in which
paid editors are, in fact, motivated NOT TO reveal their affiliations.

[Bielle]

Do we have two of these topics for a reason?

[Midsize Jake]

Currently ongoing discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list...

I have nothing against Mr. McBride of course (the OP of that thread), but I'd have to say that we might easily be forgiven for considering this "distinction" to be self-serving, not to mention completely artificial. In effect, they want to say that "paid editing" means paying an established Wikipedian to do essentially what he would probably do anyway, and "paid advocacy" means paying someone (established or otherwise) to do something he probably wouldn't do anyway. So naturally, they all want to allow "paid editing" - would wouldn't want to get paid for something he'd be doing anyway? As usual, they want to make an exception to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. What a shocker.

So, the question becomes, how many jobs are available out there for established Wikipedians to do what they would probably do anyway? I guess the former User:Dmcdevit (now known as Dominic (T-C-L)) has one, though if that's really his job description, I doubt they'd be happy to find that he's only averaging about 20-30 edits a month lately - at least under that account name.

Anyway, that's one... just think, a mere 30 million more jobs like that in the USA, and we'll have full employment!

[Randy from Boise]

Do we have two of these topics for a reason?

This is a reasonable separate topic.

I'll start: Jimmy Wales is the father of the term "Paid Advocacy Editing" and he needs to take his baby to the tub and drown it. It needlessly confuses the situation and makes it impossible for the iconoclastic and argumentative Wikipedia community to solve the paid editing question in anything remotely approaching consensus. It is going to take simplification.

1. We have on the one hand the question of PAID EDITING. We have on the other the question of POV EDITING.

2. Everybody, and I mean everybody, agrees that POV EDITING is right out. NPOV is the mandatory, non-negotiable house rule. (Now, you may or may not feel that the doctrine of NPOV is a chimera or unevenly enforced; that's another matter.)

3. The big point of disagreement is over PAID EDITING. That needs to be the matter for a plebiscite.

4. The term "Paid Advocacy Editing" muddies the concepts of PAID EDITING and POV EDITING. Intentionally so, I fear, because there are forms of technically "paid editing" of which Jimmy Wales approves -- Wikipedians in residence, university employees, etc.

I think Wikipedians probably split 60:40 against banning paid editing, more or less, based on impressionistic nose counting over the various attempts by the hardline anti people to change site policy. There needs to be about a 10 point shift and a coherent program of supervision of paid editors for paid editing to be formally accepted, I believe. Eliminating the term "Paid Advocacy Editing" would help move things towards this state of clarity — which is probably why the term is staying in the Jimmy Wales lingo, at least until he comes to accept the logic of the counter argument.

RfB

[thekohser]

Do we have two of these topics for a reason?

This is a reasonable separate topic.

Jesus.



Go and sin no more. Other topic posts merged/deleted. --Zoloft

[Midsize Jake]

(I'm assuming my post from the other thread will be merged into this thread, and will appear about 3 posts above this one...)

4. The term "Paid Advocacy Editing" muddies the concepts of PAID EDITING and POV EDITING. Intentionally so, I fear, because there are forms of technically "paid editing" of which Jimmy Wales approves -- Wikipedians in residence, university employees, etc.

Of course it's intentional; these people have always wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and they've never seen any reason why they shouldn't. The ethics and rules of "outsiders" don't apply to them. If they can't do whatever they want, they lose interest, so everything is set up to ensure that they can do whatever they want, self-serving hypocrisy be damned.

They're not going to "solve" this "problem" from within the confines of their little cult-like fantasy world. Either they accept the inevitable (and incentivize disclosure of paid accounts), or they offload the actual content, or they just keep ineffectually jabbering about how awful it is that "paid advocates" are trying to spoil their private amusement park until time immemorial. I'll give you one guess as to what they do.

[dogbiscuit]

Do we have two of these topics for a reason?

This is a reasonable separate topic.

I'll start: Jimmy Wales is the father of the term "Paid Advocacy Editing" and he needs to take his baby to the tub and drown it. It needlessly confuses the situation and makes it impossible for the iconoclastic and argumentative Wikipedia community to solve the paid editing question in anything remotely approaching consensus. It is going to take simplification.

1. We have on the one hand the question of PAID EDITING. We have on the other the question of POV EDITING.

2. Everybody, and I mean everybody, agrees that POV EDITING is right out. NPOV is the mandatory, non-negotiable house rule. (Now, you may or may not feel that the doctrine of NPOV is a chimera or unevenly enforced; that's another matter.)

3. The big point of disagreement is over PAID EDITING. That needs to be the matter for a plebiscite.

4. The term "Paid Advocacy Editing" muddies the concepts of PAID EDITING and POV EDITING. Intentionally so, I fear, because there are forms of technically "paid editing" of which Jimmy Wales approves -- Wikipedians in residence, university employees, etc.

I think Wikipedians probably split 60:40 against banning paid editing, more or less, based on impressionistic nose counting over the various attempts by the hardline anti people to change site policy. There needs to be about a 10 point shift and a coherent program of supervision of paid editors for paid editing to be formally accepted, I believe. Eliminating the term "Paid Advocacy Editing" would help move things towards this state of clarity — which is probably why the term is staying in the Jimmy Wales lingo, at least until he comes to accept the logic of the counter argument.

RfB

Actually, we have sort of given up discussing it these days, but NPOV is a useless, misleading and ultimately hopeless goal. You are potentially better off with openly editing to produce points of view with some editorial control to achieve some balance. As it stands, you get these hopelessly muddled "This but that" articles where there is no continuity of argument because every statement ends up being balanced in the vain hope of achieving neutrality and the edit warriors can't abide the thought of a single imbalanced statement holding sway at some point in an article.

So, basically, any assumption that the many eyes of Wikipedia will produce a balanced work of any quality is a lost cause (especially because a balanced work is not necessarily a NPOV work).

[DanMurphy]

Any company, individual or group paying for articles about themselves or things (be they products or ideas) they promote is inappropriate. Any payment that is not transparent, in terms of who is being paid, who's paying and precisely what the payment is for, is inappropriate. They key thing they want to avoid grappling with is that it is not only important to avoid conflicts of interest. It's as important to avoid an appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

Thoroughly transparent paid editing can be appropriate - professional science writers being hired to improve the quality of science-related articles for instance. You must know what the interests of those paying are, and then come to a reasonable judgement of whether there's a potential conflict of interest. Determining if edits are slanted (a highly subjective determination that most Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to make) is not necessary and is frankly irrelevant. If all of Britannica's medical content was sponsored by Roche a fig leaf line in their contract from Roche requesting "that they write articles from a neutral point of view" wouldn't cover much. And rightly so.

The vast majority of paid editing on Wikipedia is of course designed to serve a promotional function. This can't really be fixed without changing the whole model. Which they are unwilling to do.

So here we are.

[Peter Damian]

Any company, individual or group paying for articles about themselves or things (be they products or ideas) they promote is inappropriate. Any payment that is not transparent, in terms of who is being paid, who's paying and precisely what the payment is for, is inappropriate. They key thing they want to avoid grappling with is that it is not only important to avoid conflicts of interest. It's as important to avoid an appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

Thoroughly transparent paid editing can be appropriate - professional science writers being hired to improve the quality of science-related articles for instance. You must know what the interests of those paying are, and then come to a reasonable judgement of whether there's a potential conflict of interest. Determining if edits are slanted (a highly subjective determination that most Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to make) is not necessary and is frankly irrelevant. If all of Britannica's medical content was sponsored by Roche a fig leaf line in their contract from Roche requesting "that they write articles from a neutral point of view" wouldn't cover much. And rightly so.

The vast majority of paid editing on Wikipedia is of course designed to serve a promotional function. This can't really be fixed without changing the whole model. Which they are unwilling to do.

So here we are.

All true.

[Mancunium]

Any company, individual or group paying for articles about themselves or things (be they products or ideas) they promote is inappropriate. Any payment that is not transparent, in terms of who is being paid, who's paying and precisely what the payment is for, is inappropriate. They key thing they want to avoid grappling with is that it is not only important to avoid conflicts of interest. It's as important to avoid an appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

Thoroughly transparent paid editing can be appropriate - professional science writers being hired to improve the quality of science-related articles for instance. You must know what the interests of those paying are, and then come to a reasonable judgement of whether there's a potential conflict of interest. Determining if edits are slanted (a highly subjective determination that most Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to make) is not necessary and is frankly irrelevant. If all of Britannica's medical content was sponsored by Roche a fig leaf line in their contract from Roche requesting "that they write articles from a neutral point of view" wouldn't cover much. And rightly so.

The vast majority of paid editing on Wikipedia is of course designed to serve a promotional function. This can't really be fixed without changing the whole model. Which they are unwilling to do.

So here we are.

Here we are: monkeys dancing on the surface of planet Earth. We are not capable of gathering the Sum of All Human Knowledge (vision statement v.1 link), much less the Sum of All Knowledge (vision statement v.2 link). We are incapable of Neutral Point of View, and the community is not "infinitely larger than the sum of experience of all its individuals" link.

Whatever we do is, ultimately, done for reward, for selfish reasons: the paid editor for money, the volunteer for self-esteem, the martyr for her soul.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!

[EricBarbour]

Here we are: monkeys dancing on the surface of planet Earth. We are not capable of gathering the Sum of All Human Knowledge (vision statement v.1 link), much less the Sum of All Knowledge (vision statement v.2 link). We are incapable of Neutral Point of View, and the community is not "infinitely larger than the sum of experience of all its individuals" link.

Whatever we do is, ultimately, done for reward, for selfish reasons: the paid editor for money, the volunteer for self-esteem, the martyr for her soul.

Dance, monkeys! Dance!

Be careful, you're starting to sound like, well, me.

[Mancunium]

I am like you.

[DanMurphy]

Where do they find these people?

A museum is a commercial entity. They live from ticket incomes from customers. Universities live from tuition fees from students who freely choose which university is most attractive to them.

The difference between these institutions editing, and a private railway company when it comes to coi issues, is in my view non-existent.

Erlend

Erlend Bjørtvedt is the chair of Wikimedia Norway and his day job is as a flack for Telenor Group, the telecommunications multinational. He wrote and controls the Norwegian language Wikipedia's article on Telenor (He has 228 edits to the article. The next closest contributor has 11.)

He was discussed a bit in this thread.

[Randy from Boise]

1. We have on the one hand the question of PAID EDITING. We have on the other the question of POV EDITING.

2. Everybody, and I mean everybody, agrees that POV EDITING is right out. NPOV is the mandatory, non-negotiable house rule. (Now, you may or may not feel that the doctrine of NPOV is a chimera or unevenly enforced; that's another matter.)

3. The big point of disagreement is over PAID EDITING. That needs to be the matter for a plebiscite. (etc.)

Actually, we have sort of given up discussing it these days, but NPOV is a useless, misleading and ultimately hopeless goal. You are potentially better off with openly editing to produce points of view with some editorial control to achieve some balance. As it stands, you get these hopelessly muddled "This but that" articles where there is no continuity of argument because every statement ends up being balanced in the vain hope of achieving neutrality and the edit warriors can't abide the thought of a single imbalanced statement holding sway at some point in an article.

So, basically, any assumption that the many eyes of Wikipedia will produce a balanced work of any quality is a lost cause (especially because a balanced work is not necessarily a NPOV work).

I differ, and quite strongly. Quoting myself:

Rule 8. Everyone has bias, both conscious and inherent. The doctrine of Neutral Point of View doesn't legislate human nature away, it simply requires that one be fair and proportionate to all sides of a debate and dispassionate in the delivery.

Rule 8-1/2. In the long run Neutral Point of View will always triumph over the tendentious distortions of the moment.

Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Wikipedia writing on any even modestly controversial topic involves a negotiation between writers with different biases and viewpoints. The doctrine of NPOV is a balancing scale in this debate, a means of bringing writing tone and content into some sort of rough equilibrium. While it is completely farcical to think that tens of thousands of drive-by "contributors" can be compelled to take a big picture/all sides of the question perspective, the doctrine of NPOV allows the excesses of an overly skewed presentation to be effectively chipped down over time.

Very controversial topics still remain unresolvable without forceful external action, but NPOV is very effective for the big majority of Wikipedia pieces in keeping content disputes civil and their outcomes rational.

RfB

[thekohser]

Any company, individual or group paying for articles about themselves or things (be they products or ideas) they promote is inappropriate.

I disagree. If a large company that has had a substantial impact on its community, on the economy, on society, somehow lacks a Wikipedia article, then given Wikipedia's mission to be an expansive "sum of human knowledge" encyclopedia, it is inappropriate for that company NOT to help generate a freely-licensed documentation of that company's story... warts and all. It is inappropriate for that company to sit on its hands and wait for a "neutral", "unaffiliated" editor like Cirt or JoshuaZ or SlimVirgin to eventually get around to writing a slanted hit piece.

[Midsize Jake]

If you've been saying all along that "anyone" can edit it, then you should live up to that statement and let anyone edit it. That includes proxies, which is all that "paid editors" really are. What they're afraid of is that the unpaid users are going to throw up their hands in the face of determined opposition, give up, and then the paid users are going to take over. And they may very well be right to be afraid of that, because that could easily happen, especially if they're going to continue being as feckless about everything as they are now.

This is why we say that Wikipedia "doesn't work" - it's not that it can't be used as a massive content aggregator, because obviously it can, and has. It's because there's too much self-contradiction in the system to make enough people happy enough to keep it going. And now they're a victim of their own "success": The only way to keep the paid/POV/advocacy/whatever people out is to reduce Wikipedia's Google PageRanks, and when that happens, everybody leaves - not just the paid people.

You can't "manage" or rulemonger your way out of a self-contradictory system; you can lie and dissemble your way around it for a while, but probably not forever.

[Peter Damian]

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Wikipedia writing on any even modestly controversial topic involves a negotiation between writers with different biases and viewpoints. The doctrine of NPOV is a balancing scale in this debate, a means of bringing writing tone and content into some sort of rough equilibrium. While it is completely farcical to think that tens of thousands of drive-by "contributors" can be compelled to take a big picture/all sides of the question perspective, the doctrine of NPOV allows the excesses of an overly skewed presentation to be effectively chipped down over time.

Very controversial topics still remain unresolvable without forceful external action, but NPOV is very effective for the big majority of Wikipedia pieces in keeping content disputes civil and their outcomes rational.

RfB

And the leader of North Korea is a very good guy.

[Randy from Boise]

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Wikipedia writing on any even modestly controversial topic involves a negotiation between writers with different biases and viewpoints. The doctrine of NPOV is a balancing scale in this debate, a means of bringing writing tone and content into some sort of rough equilibrium. While it is completely farcical to think that tens of thousands of drive-by "contributors" can be compelled to take a big picture/all sides of the question perspective, the doctrine of NPOV allows the excesses of an overly skewed presentation to be effectively chipped down over time.

Very controversial topics still remain unresolvable without forceful external action, but NPOV is very effective for the big majority of Wikipedia pieces in keeping content disputes civil and their outcomes rational.

RfB

And the leader of North Korea is a very good guy.

I am just too slow to understand the point you seem to be trying to make.

RfB

[enwikibadscience]

I differ, and quite strongly. Quoting myself:

Rule 8-1/2. In the long run Neutral Point of View will always triumph over the tendentious distortions of the moment.

In the long run communism will work in implementation, not just in theory? Totalitarianism, benevolent Kims, etc., etc., etc.?

Meanwhile is anyone identifying and correcting the science and taxonomies made up for en.Wikipeia's main page?

Oh, I forget, they will be corrected eventually, like the misspelled plant family that spent 7 years on Wikipedia, not just en.WP, and got mirrored 30,000 times in those 7 years.

No problem, give it 70 years and maybe 20,000 of those mirrors will get lost.

Eventually. In the long run.

[SB_Johnny]

Quoting myself:

Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.

A doctrine is by definition a point of view. Try meditating yourself out of that indefinite recursion .

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Bumblebee flight has been explained. It had nothing to do with a doctrine.

[Hex]

If a large company that has had a substantial impact on its community, on the economy, on society, somehow lacks a Wikipedia article, then given Wikipedia's mission to be an expansive "sum of human knowledge" encyclopedia, it is inappropriate for that company NOT to help generate a freely-licensed documentation of that company's story... warts and all.

Hear, hear.

[Randy from Boise]

Quoting myself:

Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.

A doctrine is by definition a point of view. Try meditating yourself out of that indefinite recursion .

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Bumblebee flight has been explained. It had nothing to do with a doctrine.

A. etymology: Hmmmm, "a doctrine is by definition a point of view." Not really. Doctrine is an explicitly-stated belief or set of beliefs. Doctrine does reflect certain preconceptions and perspectives, but it is not in itself a point of view the same way that "point of view" is understood with respect to WP article content. The doctrine of NPOV is based upon the preconceived notion that multisided and temperate discussion of content is inherently superior to tendentious discussion of content. Every article needs to be assessed on this abstract basis... Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm.

B. entomology: Sorry, I was a little unclear. By "the bumblebee" I mean Wikipedia, a metaphor. It looks like it can't fly, but it does... I realize that the mechanics of actual bumblebee flight have been explained.


RfB

[SB_Johnny]

Quoting myself:

Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.

A doctrine is by definition a point of view. Try meditating yourself out of that indefinite recursion .

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Bumblebee flight has been explained. It had nothing to do with a doctrine.

A. etymology: Hmmmm, "a doctrine is by definition a point of view." Not really. Doctrine is an explicitly-stated belief or set of beliefs. Doctrine does reflect certain preconceptions and perspectives, but it is not in itself a point of view the same way that "point of view" is understood with respect to WP article content. The doctrine of NPOV is based upon the preconceived notion that multisided and temperate discussion of content is inherently superior to tendentious discussion of content. Every article needs to be assessed on this abstract basis... Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm.

B. entomology: Sorry, I was a little unclear. By "the bumblebee" I mean Wikipedia, a metaphor. It looks like it can't fly, but it does... I realize that the mechanics of actual bumblebee flight have been explained.


RfB

I'm not feeling the slightest bit debunked. Read your retort again a few times (in the lotus position, assuming you're bendy enough), and you'll see why .

[Mancunium]

Rule 8-1/2. In the long run Neutral Point of View will always triumph over the tendentious distortions of the moment.

In the long run we are all dead.

[Hersch]

If you've been saying all along that "anyone" can edit it, then you should live up to that statement and let anyone edit it. That includes proxies, which is all that "paid editors" really are. What they're afraid of is that the unpaid users are going to throw up their hands in the face of determined opposition, give up, and then the paid users are going to take over.

Not a chance. The paid editors are likely to reasonable people, who at the end of twelve hour shift are going to want to close up their laptops and go get a brewski or take a walk. Not so your unpaid advocacy editors, who can tap deep reserves of nerd-obsessive adrenaline and keep editing out of blind POV fury, like SlimVirgin with her fabled 72 edit binges.

The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

You may be right (I know, I know, it's the Daily Mail which is always wrong, but I just thought it was interesting.)

[Randy from Boise]

Quoting myself:

Rule 9. Without the doctrine of Neutral Point of View Wikipedia would have disintegrated long ago. It is the glue that holds The Project together and as such it is the single most important creation of Messrs. Sanger and Wales.

A doctrine is by definition a point of view. Try meditating yourself out of that indefinite recursion .

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Bumblebee flight has been explained. It had nothing to do with a doctrine.

A. etymology: Hmmmm, "a doctrine is by definition a point of view." Not really. Doctrine is an explicitly-stated belief or set of beliefs. Doctrine does reflect certain preconceptions and perspectives, but it is not in itself a point of view the same way that "point of view" is understood with respect to WP article content. The doctrine of NPOV is based upon the preconceived notion that multisided and temperate discussion of content is inherently superior to tendentious discussion of content. Every article needs to be assessed on this abstract basis... Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm.

B. entomology: Sorry, I was a little unclear. By "the bumblebee" I mean Wikipedia, a metaphor. It looks like it can't fly, but it does... I realize that the mechanics of actual bumblebee flight have been explained.


RfB

I'm not feeling the slightest bit debunked. Read your retort again a few times (in the lotus position, assuming you're bendy enough), and you'll see why .

I have my fingers in my ears as I'm Ommmmmmmmmming...

RfB

[Peter Damian]

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained. I believe the doctrine of NPOV is one primary mechanism.

Wikipedia writing on any even modestly controversial topic involves a negotiation between writers with different biases and viewpoints. The doctrine of NPOV is a balancing scale in this debate, a means of bringing writing tone and content into some sort of rough equilibrium. While it is completely farcical to think that tens of thousands of drive-by "contributors" can be compelled to take a big picture/all sides of the question perspective, the doctrine of NPOV allows the excesses of an overly skewed presentation to be effectively chipped down over time.

Very controversial topics still remain unresolvable without forceful external action, but NPOV is very effective for the big majority of Wikipedia pieces in keeping content disputes civil and their outcomes rational.

RfB

And the leader of North Korea is a very good guy.

I am just too slow to understand the point you seem to be trying to make.

RfB

I was thinking of that U.S. basketball player who was quoted as saying the leader was a 'very good guy'. And I was thinking that this is a person there was no point in arguing with. He had presumably seen or heard or read all the evidence to the contrary and that had somehow bypassed his brain and he was living in an alternate reality.

"a doctrine is by definition a point of view." Not really. Doctrine is an explicitly-stated belief or set of beliefs.

'Doctrine' is literally a set of things that are taught. So, not just explicitly stated, but delivered with the force of authority to those who must learn.

There is a general disbelief on this site that Wikipedia can work. But it does work. The reasons why the bumblebee is able to fly remain to be explained.

Interesting. From our book (this chapter):

What is Wikipedia? We understand what something is when we understand the reason for its existence, says Aristotle. So can we understand Wikipedia? The question that that foundations and businesses are desperately trying to answer, according to Evgeny Morozov, is not how Wikipedia works but why it works. Some say that it is impossible. The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work. According to Clay Shirky, “there was no way to predict, even with the first rush of articles, that the rate of creation and the average quality would both remain high, but today those objections have taken on the flavor of the apocryphal farmer beholding his first giraffe and exclaiming, ‘Ain’t no such animal!’”.

On the contrary. One of the underlying themes, perhaps the underlying theme of this book is that nearly everything we know about Wikipedia can be explained in terms of existing existing social theory, anthropology, politics, management theory, economics and history. Wikipedia is not the anomalous creature of popular myth.

The bumblebee thing is also mentioned at a later point.

[Peter Damian]

Frank Schulenberg explains in today’s Signpost

The terms paid editing and paid advocacy are very specific, and may not always be clear to many.

Right.

[lilburne]

Frank Schulenberg explains in today’s Signpost

The terms paid editing and paid advocacy are very specific, and may not always be clear to many.

Right.

ACAS Code for Disciplinary processes

22. Some acts, termed gross misconduct, are so serious in themselves or
have such serious consequences that they may call for dismissal without
notice for a first offence. But a fair disciplinary process should always be
followed, before dismissing for gross misconduct.

23. Disciplinary rules should give examples of acts which the employer
regards as acts of gross misconduct. These may vary according to the
nature of the organisation and what it does, but might include things
such as theft or fraud, physical violence, gross negligence or serious
insubordination.
http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1047

These are basically minimal standards.

So prima facie we can conclude that the WMF are not a good employer. Do they have any Labour or TU editors amongst their ranks? One should be asking them to boycott the organisation.

[Poetlister]

Be careful, you're starting to sound like, well, me.

I am like you.

Could this be the most amazing disclosure of the week?

[Mancunium]

Be careful, you're starting to sound like, well, me.

I am like you.

Could this be the most amazing disclosure of the week?

Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
— Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!

[Zoloft]

Be careful, you're starting to sound like, well, me.

I am like you.

Could this be the most amazing disclosure of the week?

Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
— Hypocrite lecteur, — mon semblable, — mon frère!

We are all delicate monsters, children in our own memories, stumbling awkwardly through an adult world.

[EricBarbour]

[Zoloft]

In this we are unlike you.

To hearken back to the subject.

I used to be a union rep. Thankless job. But you can help ensure that people are not punished more severely than the offense warrants, sometimes.

Sarah merited a warning, or if there are more articles than we know, maybe a suspension at worst. A brief apology from her if she wanted, to settle the affair. A short wiki-vacation, and then back to being the media face for Wikimedia's outreach program for women.

What they did instead was to react quickly, but not wisely.

[EricBarbour]

What they did instead was to react quickly, but not wisely.

As usual, when public humiliation threatens the "magical Project". Unless you're some crank like Ikip, then you can screw with people for 8 years.

[Zoloft]

What they did instead was to react quickly, but not wisely.

As usual, when public humiliation threatens the "magical Project". Unless you're some crank like Ikip, then you can screw with people for 8 years.

They also failed to ask, "What is Russavia's motive in bringing this to our attention?"

[Poetlister]

I used to be a union rep. Thankless job. But you can help ensure that people are not punished more severely than the offense warrants.

Aha, so I am like Zoloft! I was a union rep. Yes, the correct procedure is to allow someone to take voluntary redundancy, with the appropriate pay-off and no note on their record that any disciplinary offence was committed. That way, when anyone asks that employer for a reference, they say that the person left voluntarily with a clean record.

[HRIP7]

What they did instead was to react quickly, but not wisely.

As usual, when public humiliation threatens the "magical Project". Unless you're some crank like Ikip, then you can screw with people for 8 years.

Yep. They're driven by PR thinking. Same with Wiki-PR – that scandal was known for months; a bureaucrat resigned over it. The Foundation did nothing – nichts – nada – zilch – until the article in The Daily Dot appeared and gained traction with other outlets.

It's all reactive window dressing. No inherent integrity or care about what goes on in the projects whatsoever.

[Hersch]

Aha, so I am like Zoloft! I was a union rep.

OK, so we add another one to your vast wardrobe of personas.

[Randy from Boise]

What they did instead was to react quickly, but not wisely.

As usual, when public humiliation threatens the "magical Project". Unless you're some crank like Ikip, then you can screw with people for 8 years.

They also failed to ask, "What is Russavia's motive in bringing this to our attention?"

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Assume Good Faith.

RussAvia (the new hip way to spell his name) just wants to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia's content. The notion of embarrassing anti-paid editing extremist Jimmy Wales and the WMF never, ever, ever crossed his mind!

RfB

[Abd]

In the discussion thread referenced, there was http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/w ... 834#422834, with quite a few penetrating ideas; however, there was also the trope:

Now, the question about "paid advocacy". Again, one of our core
principle is NPOV. We don't want people to push their POV. Whether
they're paid or not, is not relevant.

There is a truly fundamental error here. There is an imagination that there is some position called "NPOV." It's a fact that some people can develop the capacity to write with relative neutrality, it's an academic skill. However, suppose I'm an expert on a topic, faced with Randy from Boise, who -- sorry, Randy -- is utterly clueless about the topic and doesn't understand the sources, and misinterprets them (from my expert point of view, not saying it is "correct."). I have a POV, and so does Randy. Now, do I "push" my POV?

A lot of experts have done so, and have been blocked and banned for it. The problem was misunderstood. The problem is not "POV pushing," per se, but decision process. One might notice that hardly anyone declares themselves as a "POV pusher." Rather, someone like ScienceApologist used to claim he was an "SPOV pusher," referring to Scientific Point of View, which actually immediately discloses his bias, because Science is not a point of view, it's a method of assessing points of view, and SA's positions were what Feynman called Cargo Cult Science. I.e., worship of some idea of science, not science as a process itself.

Wikipedia declared neutrality as a policy, but there is only one way to be (relatively) certain about the neutrality of text, which is for it to be assessed by all points of view, by those familiar with those points of view -- experts in them -- and found acceptable by consensus. Since that may not be possible, at least not in every case, then, neutrality can be seen as a goal, not as an absolute, and one can measure the progress toward the goal by the level of consensus.

To fully satisfy the goal of neutrality, this process must be open-ended, but discussions can be structured to build consensus, to continually shift toward maximized consensus. If, however, people are banned for "POV pushing," genuine consensus becomes unattainable.

In this process, it is necessary to have the participation of experts, wherever possible, and these experts will have points of view, which they will "push," i.e., advocate. I used to write that having a POV creates a POV detector for opposing points of view. I could see them being pushed where those not expert in the field would see nothing untoward. This is particularly necessary when a POV is a minority position in some field. The majority POV can be almost invisible to the majority, they think it is "just the truth, it's neutral."

The solution to this is genuine consensus process, which Wikipedia generally hates, because it takes a lot of discussion in depth. In order to handle this, discussion hierarchy is needed. (WP DR process suggests this. It is little used.) I was able to implement this in a few places before being banned. It's not difficult in itself, but as long as the community thinks that "POV pushing" is a crime, an overall solution remains elusive.

[Abd]

From our book (this chapter):

One of the underlying themes, perhaps the underlying theme of this book is that nearly everything we know about Wikipedia can be explained in terms of existing existing social theory, anthropology, politics, management theory, economics and history. Wikipedia is not the anomalous creature of popular myth.

Right. Most of what Wikipedia is was predictable, for those who have studied such things. It was predictable that the community would likely fail in certain ways, but how far that would go and whether or not some new possibility would appear to defeat the predictions, that wasn't clear, at least not to me. There were aspects of Wikipedia policy and elements in the community which gave me hope that it might turn out differently, and it still could, but hasn't.

I see the hopeful elements as having become weaker, not stronger, as the weight of accumulated history and viewpoint, the gradual filtering of the community for compatibility with an increasingly narrow mythos, continue to crush the liberating possibilities.

[Poetlister]

Aha, so I am like Zoloft! I was a union rep.

OK, so we add another one to your vast wardrobe of personas.

I keep telling you, you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not in your league when it comes to multiple accounts.

[Abd]

Aha, so I am like Zoloft! I was a union rep.

OK, so we add another one to your vast wardrobe of personas.

I keep telling you, you're confusing me with someone else. I'm not in your league when it comes to multiple accounts.

Well, Poetlister, he didn't really say "multiple accounts." I can understand that you might be a tad ... sensitive ... on this issue. It would indeed be unfair to classify you with those with a "vast wardrobe" of socks.

Complicated issue. It's bizarre to me that you are the only major globally banned user, given what you *actually* did. However, you did definitely manage to piss of large numbers of editors, and that is the real standard for global bans, not actual risk to the project. Whatever risk remained was only that people would pour in to any discussion of your rights and create train wrecks.

It's bizarre because there are users who, over time, created far, far more disruption, often resulting in unfair bans and blocks and large numbers of editors leaving, but ... they are still administrators and/or editors "in good standing."
Wikipedia never goes back and fixes mistakes. It's considered "beating a dead horse.*

That would be reasonable except that they then proceed to act as if the horse is alive, and make continued decisions based on that history. I've called this the "dictatorship of the past." It is a particular affliction of organizations that, on the face, seek consensus, but that then enshrine past decisions, giving them enduring force because "the matter was already decided." I watched over the decades as many progressive and forward-thinking organizations, adopting consensus rule because of the genuine power of consensus, fell apart as the process favored those who benefited from the status quo. Consensus as a rule is actually conservative, even reactionary. Oppose a prior decision, and you are a troublemaker, in opposition to "consensus."