Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-05-17

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-05-17. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: "Wikicology" ends in site ban; evidence and workshop phases concluded for "Gamaliel and others" (1,154 bytes · 💬)

  • Gamaliel and others - So this must be why the Signpost is exploring moving to Wordpress on wmflabs. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
We are? Since when? GamerPro64 04:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: See the [Labs-l] Signpost thread on the wmflabs mailing list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like TParis wants to know if it's possible. IMO not everything that helps Wikipedia is best done on Wikipedia, that is, I'm not hostile to the idea, but if Signpost writers felt this was necessary, I'd want to know why. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
More discussion at User_talk:Jayen466#wikipedia_journalism--v/r - TP 05:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: Two weeks for the prize of one (265 bytes · 💬)

In the media: Wikimedia's Dario Taraborelli quoted on Google's Knowledge Graph in The Washington Post (2,297 bytes · 💬)

  • It's discouraging to see our user-created content being used by Google who is making billions of dollars in ad revenue. OTOH Wikipedia would never be this successful if Google changed their algo to filter out or down Wikipedia hits. Google is God-like in other ways. -- GreenC 04:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • +1 (no pun intended) Jane (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Derry was Derry until the plantation movement when the land was "given" to the City of London hence Londonderry. Now finally both names are official, though you are correct Google are not interested in the historical context. Derry is not and never has been unofficial as it was the original name of the place. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Surely you mean it was given to the "City of Londinium"? That's the original name of the place, and therefore has "never been unofficial"? MPS1992 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Betty White's age we can be reasonably sure about. But despite my repeated efforts, WSAT is listed by Google as adult standards and oldies. I don't remember if I added oldies to the article, but for the most part between 2006 and 2015, the station's music matched what is defined by the industry as "adult standards". The morning show and some special programs, and some music they played before sports events, were "oldies". Now, the morning show is the only thing close to "adult standards" but still wouldn't fit that definition. I guarantee the rest of the station's music doesn't come close. A few songs fitting that format here and there do not qualify.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

News and notes: Affiliates' nomination of WMF trustees announced; FDC's straight talking to WMF (6,401 bytes · 💬)

Really great job this week, Tony1 and Jayen466. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • " could reopen wounds." what a load of crock. So WMF cannot recognize it was thoroughly disgusting and leave it behind. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Tony1: I'm not sure whether there's been a misunderstanding with the percentages quoted in the FDC recommendations, or if it's just unclear wording, but to clarify: in the recommendation table the "Change in allocation from last year" column refers to the recommended funding amounts, not the asks. So when you say "93% of an ask that was up by 50% from last year's" for WMAM, as an example, the recommended amount is up 50% from last year's grant, but their ask was actually different by 61% (see this table). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: Sorry Mike, my misreading. I hope it's fixed now. Tony (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    That looks correct now, thanks for the quick fix. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Signpost team (esp. Tony) for taking the time to report on this (and for having done some MoS editing on the report itself). It is the press' prerogative to highlight issues it sees as important, of course, but I hope that the decision to highlight a couple of negative comments to specific teams in the Signpost summary doesn't give give those comments undue weight. Not the least of which is because we [the members of the FDC] also wrote compliemtary comments. More importantly, is that we went to a lot of effort to try to write a report that was "actionable" at all levels - not only high level comments to the board and ED, but also comments to each departmental area, and also comments to the level of individual programs/goals (in the tables of the 'appendix'). It's a delicate balance between being too high-level to be useful, and too low-level that's just 'bikeshedding'. So, further down the report to the WMF, the more specific the feedback becomes. if something was important enough for wider attention, then it would appear in the department-level comments, or the overall comments.

What I'm trying to say is that I hope our main feedback to the Board doesn't get lost: namely that our chief recommendation is that the Board undertakes a proper externally run review of itself (including but not limited to the scope we specified) and that it does this before a permanent ED is appointed. Wittylama 09:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wittylama, Tony1: Without coming off as defensive because my program in particular got called out, I want to walk through how some of this analysis reads.
  1. First-off, FDC did an incredible, commendable, thorough, specific, and tough/fair job. I'm impressed with the scale of the task you tackled. Secondly, Signpost did as usual yeoman's work in distilling the essence of complex topics for community understanding.
  2. However, to quibble, FDC questioned only Q2 metrics not yearly metrics for Wikipedia Library and other teams it mentioned. That detail was dropped from the Signpost bullet list, in a theme here of context gone missing.
  3. Q2 KPI disappointments are very much explicable: The conflict with Lila hit its peak internally for staff in Q2 whereas community didn't feel its force until Q3. Q2 was the quarter of the dreadful November all-staff meeting, our depressing engagement survey, collective staff statements to the Board, James Heilmans' removal, and Christmas break. It was also the first 3 months of the new PC&L reorg under Rosemary. All of that is 'out there', in our QR reports or other news forums, but the context goes missing and leaves the impression that there is a deeper flaw somewhere or just ignorance. We know really well what happened in Q2 and the demoralizing and distracting effect it had on staff (albeit not equally for everyone).
  4. Year-over-year metrics for TWL and CR are actually quite strong, a conclusion that wouldn't follow for a casual Signpost reader who relies on it, as I do, for a quick way to get up to speed on what happened and what's worth paying attention to.
  5. Metrics are cyclical or variable for many teams. Whether that is unpredictability for publisher partners who respond (or don't respond) to our outreach emails, or the number of Grants that come through at a given time, our programs do not necessarily expect to meet single targets, because in many cases our targets are dependent on a number of factors out of our control. You can rebut that we should pick better KPIs, but the problem is deeper than picking the perfect one and calibrating it more precisely.
  6. No single metric can ever tell the story of performance and growth (unless you're just racing against a clock perhaps). KPIs are not helpful when isolated, and taken out of context--that's equally true for our grantees, and for us as an organization.
  7. Liam, I really appreciate you bringing the broader thrust to put this narrative back in perspective. It's just a natural feature on a multi-faceted analysis that each facet brings new room for interpretation or misinterpretation.
  8. Finally, I really do think often about how the Wikipedia Library can be better and more effective, but that internal quest is rarely captured in a KPI, even though I like the pretense they give of telling us how good a job we are doing. Life is more rich and complicated than that, thank god ;)
--On behalf of just my own opinion. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • To rephrase Christophe Henner's comments:I won't offend or rock the boat. Just sex and drugs,and rock and roll.--Catlemur (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed: Swiss chapter in turmoil (13,978 bytes · 💬)

There's a related blog post by Gabriel Thullen at http://wikistrategies.net/french-paid-editing/ summarising some of the discussions in the French Wikipedia. --Andreas JN466 02:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • That is an amazing/terrible story, about how this emerged. Thanks for telling the story. The other thing I want to say, is that there is no good faith justification that I can see, for the board members who were paid editors to fail disclose their paid edits per the Terms of Use, which is very clear that the employer, client, and affiliation must be disclosed for each edit that is made for consideration (nor is there in "vous devez divulguer l’identité de votre employeur, de votre client et de votre affiliation relativement à toute contribution à tout projet Wikimedia pour laquelle vous percevez, ou espérez percevoir, une rémunération." from here) The ToU are plenty clear. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Our response to this should be 3-fold:

1) Chapters, affiliates, and user-groups should all include a strict no-paid-editing-for-officers-and-employees clause in their by-laws.

2) The WMF should have the same type of rule for all chapters, etc in their rules.

3) The English-language Wikipedia should add a clause to the policy Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure prohibiting paid edits by officers and employees of chapters, affiliates and user groups. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be obvious to any engaged, long-term Wikipedian, especially one who puts enough thought into these issues to start a business; but since experience tells us it's not, we should certainly have relevant policies at all levels. It's a shame that we don't. On #3, it's not quite that simple, as chapter staff should be able to make edits relevant to the chapter itself; but that is a small detail.
There's more to it, of course; the problems in this case go well beyond the crossover between board membership and partnership in an agency. The extended lack of transparency is rather astonishing, above all the apparent meat-puppeting; and the way specific articles were approached is far from providing a good example for paid editor engagement. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree with User:Smallbones with the clause that this refers to "third party payments" not payment by the chapter itself.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree on the staff and officer level and board level that not allowing this sort of COI is correct - that COI is not manageable for people who have operational and other key oversight and relationship-building responsibilities, and must be eliminated/not allowed. I don't agree with the board level aspect. I believe that it is possible to be a paid editor and be a very good faith member of the community, if the paid editor very transparently discloses, doesn't edit directly, proposes high quality content on Talk pages (very well sourced, very neutral, including negatives), and doesn't BLUDGEON discussions. In other words, is truly clueful. This is possible. Somebody like that could be a great board member and there should be no bar to them running, especially if they have clearly disclosed and the voters would be aware of their paid editing when they vote. The employees of Racosch Sàrl were not like that, at all.
People are people, and you will find people acting unethically and abusively everywhere you go in many different ways (witness the WMF board over the past couple years), so I am not terribly surprised that this particular ugly thing happened.
The two things I really don't understand are 1) why the Swiss community re-elected Frédéric and was ready to re-elect Stéphane, after all this emerged; and 2) why the Swiss board has not dismissed Frédéric; somebody with a history of disdain for community norms and of deceit should not remain on the board. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (redacted per below Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC))
Jytdog, you make a good point, however I think the cases where it would be possible for a chapter board member to engage in paid editing without ethical compromises are vanishingly small. You are right that they could conduct the work within a project responsibly, if they pay attention to the right things; but there is a bigger concern.
I speak from extensive experience on this. As the owner of a Wikipedia-focused business, I find it difficult to have a serious discussion with the representatives of an organization about Wikipedia, without thinking about the ways I could help them if they can pay for a significant portion of my time. I have a personal (and somewhat fluid) standard of how much help I will offer on my own time, and what level of assistance will require a contract. There's a good, solid gap in between...we prefer not to take on small projects, since it's difficult to have confidence in success, so it's a risk for our client and therefore for us. In that in between zone, I'll usually look to refer an organization to a motivated volunteer who shares their interest, or a chapter or similar organization.
Most chapters, I believe, do a substantial amount of programmatic work in content partnerships -- GLAM, education, and similar. There's a strong overlap with the kind of thing my business, or a business like Racoch, charge for. And also, most chapters have no paid staff, or only a few; so board members are pretty actively involved with pursuing, and scoping out, content partnerships. There is a great deal of room in that dynamic for an individual -- whether intentionally or unconsciously -- to devote their attention more to projects that may benefit their business interests, than to those that don't. At minimum, the issue would be a significant distraction to any board member with a foot in both worlds; but in practice, I think it would be more than a mere distraction. It would influence the activities of the chapter, for reasons utterly separate from its charitable mission.
I think it's theoretically possible that a chapter could be big enough that the board is exclusively focused on strategic issues, and partnership discussions are carried out almost exclusively by paid staff. If that's the case, it might be possible for a board member to engage in paid editing, without an unmanageable conflict of interest. It would still require careful management, but it might be possible. But I don't think that's at all typical of how chapters work in the Wikimedia world today. -Pete (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, well taken and things I wasn't aware of. Redacted above. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I will just try to clarify Jytdog's two points. Part of the difficulties stem from the differences in culture and business practices between the US and Switzerland.
1) why the Swiss community re-elected Frédéric and was ready to re-elect Stéphane, after all this emerged;
This issue with paid editing and COI emerged during the actual elections. Each candidate prepared a short presentation, and that was when questions were asked about paid editing and COI of certain board members. You must understand that the General Assembly was running very late, that there had been a long and frustrating discussion about voting regulations and how to count votes. When it finally came around to voting the new voting regulations, the assembly had to re-vote at least once (there were more votes than persons present) and so on.
When the subject of paid editing and COI came up, the two board members systematically played down the importance of this issue. Most members WMCH had placed a large amount of trust in the two board members, and were not about to change their mind on such short notice... You also have to realize that this type of COI is quite common and is still accepted among elected officials and politicians in Switzerland. We (the Swiss people) are slowly changing the way of doing things over here, transparency is progressing little by little, but there still is a lot to be done before we even reach the level of disclosure that is the norm for American elections.
2) why the Swiss board has not dismissed Frédéric; somebody with a history of disdain for community norms and of deceit should not remain on the board.
The board as a whole was not aware of these activities. The chapter president may or may not have been aware, but if he did know about the paid editing activities, he did not bring them to the board’s attention. What is certain is that the WMCH vice-president and spokesman, as well as the acting Executive Director knew about the paid editing and COI, and they did not think it was an issue the board had to deal with - they were both partners of the Racosch PR company. GastelEtzwane (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. 1) Makes great sense, and again that sounds like a very difficult thing to have lived through. I am sorry for that. On 2), you have my sympathy there as well. I guess in the next election things will be different!! Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There was already a big change in the board but the new board is in force first on 1th june. The bylaws let the old board in force two month after election. - There is a policy how the processes are by probable COI but the old board hasn't followed yet. --Micha 11:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha (talk • contribs)
  • People do this stuff. It's understandable, but they need to be brought in from the cold.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC).
  • I agree, to some degree, Rich Farmbrough. It's come to my attention that I may have come across as blaming too much. I do think it's very easy to get into problematic dynamics in our movement, because there are problematic views and unresolved discussions all over the place. That's an important reason why I initially opposed the adoption of the TOU update, as noted in the op-ed's footnote: February 2014 Signpost op-ed It's too easy for people to conclude that the necessary conditions imposed by the TOU are sufficient for ethical and respectful behavior.
    If we're going to get to a better place around paid editing, blame and vilification can't be the focus. Yes, some agencies treat Wikipedia with outright contempt, and should be treated accordingly; but the more important thing we need to do is clearly articulate parameters that will likely lead to successful projects, where Wikipedia is clearly improved and a client is also happy with the results. I try to do some of this on my blog and in my company's Statement of Ethics; and others do good work as well. But we can all do better.
    In this case, I do think there is an important choice to be made, though: I think the board member who's also with Racosche should decide which is more important to him, and resign from the other. Not out of shame, but out of respect for the near-impossibility of managing such an ongoing COI day to day. -Pete (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes there is campaigning going on to build a counter-narrative and to discredit this one. I have been digging into the weeds of the actual editing and disclosures made over at fr-wiki and it appears to me that there indeed was a failure to disclose paid editing, and there was and is direct editing of articles by paid editors. At some point I will post the results of my work with diffs. It also appears that the principals have been active in shaping the COI guideline over there, which is problematic. The heart of this story seems accurate.
I agree with Rich that folks need to be brought in from the cold; the community there does need to put in place clear processes for people to disclose and post proposed changes on Talk pages. The Swiss board should be very supportive of that, and should be leading by example.
And to the extent that members of Rasoch are fighting putting in place clear policies, guidelines, and procedures, or obscuring or denying their own failures to disclose and follow the COI guideline in the past, this just show how much their conflicting interest is dominating their interest in the movement and the Swiss foundation. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Oh behave, Beyhive / Underdogs (1,581 bytes · 💬)

  • Wrestling: Is it really a mystical fascination, or is there no other source that summarizes the event quite like Wikipedia can? Wikipedia is the last refuge of dispossessed subcultures. czar 08:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Dispossessed? Dude, the meek are getting ready. EllenCT (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't forget that if Wimbledon are promoted, then next season they'll play the MK Dons, the very team that caused their creation. Miyagawa (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Miyagawa, great point, that would be epic! I can't believe they are now only one win away from promotion!--Milowent • hasspoken 18:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikicup: That's it for WikiCup Round 2! (622 bytes · 💬)

  • DYK that the 12-6 elbow strike as shown in the featured photo is a cheap trick? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, the move's real, it's just that the brick-breaking isn't as impressive as it looks due to how the force dissipates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-05-17&oldid=1125230634"