Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-07-15







Add links
 









Project page
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
15 July 2015

Op-ed
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it

Traffic report
Belles of the ball

WikiProject report
What happens when a country is no longer a country?

In the media
Shapps requests WMUK data; professor's plagiarism demotion

Blog
Wikimedia Foundation releases third transparency report

News and notes
The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania

Featured content
When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate

Technology report
Tech news in brief

 

2015-07-15

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByWilliam Beutler, 16912 Rhiannon
    Once again, WWB and Fuzheado will be presenting at Wikimania. View their discourse from last year.


    "How long will this take?" This is one of the first questions new clients ask. They come to us because the Wikipedia entry about the company at which they work is wrong, incomplete, or even just outdated. The answer varies, but it often comes as a shock when we explain that fixing problems on the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a project measured in weeks, if not months.

    Many are speaking to us because they have tried before and failed, or were spooked by headlines about others who had tried and failed. Late last month, another firm joined the list of ignominy: Sunshine Sachs, a PR agency to the stars, was busted for removing content from Naomi Campbell's entry, among others (see previous Signpost coverage). But often, even company representatives who mean well are treated as if the fault rests entirely with them, and are reprimanded simply for not understanding how Wikipedia works.

    This is something we see every day. Together, we have nearly 10 years combined experience helping brands, companies, and organizations engage Wikipedia constructively. We help them understand what they can accomplish, what they should leave alone, and how to engage with Wikipedia's volunteers. Although the process has improved over time, we believe the right balance has yet to be discovered.


    How the Bright Line works

    There are various views on paid editing on Wikipedia, among them, a suggestion that it should be explicitly forbidden. However, another standard is the Bright Line, as suggested by founder Jimbo Wales

    The state-of-the-art in conflict of interest engagement is commonly called the "Bright Line" rule, from a quote by Jimmy Wales when he first outlined the concept in 2012. It basically goes like this: "I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us".

    We immediately embraced this new development. After all, our greatest challenge over time was not the research and writing, nor aligning client goals with Wikipedia's mission, but rather the uncertainty involved in navigating a community that has as many views on paid advocacy as there are members. The Bright Line was an elegant solution, simplifying the process and making it more comprehensible for editors and clients alike.

    It had other benefits, too: more feedback makes for better articles, and volunteer editors can help clarify things for a "lay audience". Sometimes clients are pushy, and it’s helpful to be able to use editor review as a backstop. Occasionally, it will even spark a great collaboration: identifying additional areas for improvement neither side would have found alone.


    When the Bright Line does not work

    The Bright Line can work, and we (and others who have embraced it) are proof. But after three years of following its prescripts, we are all too aware of the times when it does not. Jimbo's elegant solution comes with its own limitations, challenges, and even contradictions. Here are several reasons the status quo can and should be improved:


    A proposed "First Amendment" to the Bright Line constitution

    Signpost poll

    Do you support the Bright Line rule?

     

     

     

     

      Yes, unequivocally (58%; 33 votes)

      Yes, with reservations (28%; 16 votes)

      Not at all (14%; 8 votes)

    Yes, unequivocally

    Yes, with reservations

    Not at all

    These problems raise an obvious question: what needs to be done? We have one short term suggestion that would immediately relieve some of the burden on volunteer editors and the wait times for adherents: The Bright Line should include an allowance for "maintenance edits".

    Currently, the Bright Line allows exceptions for "emergency edits" that are comparatively rare: missed (obvious) vandalism and libel. A simple fix would be to allow for "maintenance edits" such as de-orphaning an article and removing the template afterward.

    By applying common sense and allowing for edits that do not alter previous editorial decisions, the burden on volunteer editors can be eased, and neglected entries can be improved. To assuage concerns of potential abuse, COI editors might be required to use a standard edit summary such as "COI maintenance edit" so a filter could be created for identification and review.


    Let's start over

    The nuclear option, of course, would be to abandon the Bright Line altogether. While we wouldn't necessarily encourage doing so at this time, there is one (however unlikely) scenario in which doing so would make a great deal of sense: if Flagged Revisions were to make a comeback. Especially in light of the recent GamerGate debacle, the only difference really is whether the debate over GamerGate-inspired edits should have been a public game of whack-a-mole or a semi-public queue for editorial review.

    In this scenario, editors with paid conflicts would receive scrutiny, and with new community infrastructure—not to mention some valuable gamification—they would be more likely to receive it in a timely manner. The uncertainty of how to participate and the absurdity of asking for help when the correction is obvious would be reduced, if not altogether eliminated.


    A more elegant solution

    Given our years of experience with client requests, we are comfortable explaining how Wikipedia works even to skeptical clients. Knowing how complex even "simple" requests can be, and how important it is to get things right, sometimes the months of research, writing and discussion are necessary. But the Bright Line in its current form makes no distinction between that which deserves careful scrutiny and those requiring a lighter touch. A few common sense adjustments would make the Bright Line easier to explain, more likely to be followed, and free Wikipedia volunteers to focus on more important things.


    For more Signpost coverage on paid editing see our paid editing series.


    William Beutler and 16912 Rhiannon are principals in a digital consultancy that specializes in online community content, including Wikipedia.

    On Friday, July 17 at 16:45 (Mexico City time), William Beutler will be leading (with Andrew Lih) the Wikimania roundtable discussion Can Conflicts of Interest (COIs) be aligned with the Wikimedia project? Please join him to discuss this idea as well as anything else related to COI/paid editing.

    Reader comments

    2015-07-15

    Belles of the ball

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • BySerendipodous

    However coy they may be about it in public, Americans love to win. And when they do, they make no secret of it. Today saw two American triumphs in world sport: Serena Williams securing her sixth Wimbledon win and the Women's national team securing their third World Cup title. America has had little recent success in men's tennis, lorded over as it is by seemingly invulnerable demigods like Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. On the women's side though, Serena rules alone. As far as soccer goes, the US may not have a chance of ever dominating the male equivalent, but they rule the women's game, and are becoming increasingly vocal about it. Hopefully this will kickstart the one thing America is better at than any other nation in history: sales. As their ebullience translates into exposure and buzz, slowly other countries will come to treat women's football with the respect it deserves.

    For the full top-25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions. For a list of the most edited articles of the week, see here.

    As prepared by Serendipodous, for the week of July 5 to 11, 2015, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:

    Rank Article Class Views Image Notes
    1 Serena Williams B-class 1,002,160
    Serena's no stranger to this list, but this week sent her into the stratosphere. Not only did she win Wimbledon for the sixth time in a straight-sets duel with Garbine Muguruza, she also secured her second "Serena Slam" – winning four major titles in a row, and is on course to winning a Grand Slam (four major titles in a calendar year). If she succeeds, she will be the first woman to do so since Steffi Graf in 1988. At 33 she is also the oldest ever world women's tennis number 1; with 16 years between her first title and her latest, Williams has already surpassed other long-surviving legends in her sport, such as Graf and Martina Navratilova, and shows no signs of slowing down. To put this in perspective, the 21-year-old Muguruza was only five when Williams won her first title.
    2 Abby Wambach Good Article 988,700
    The forward for the American women's national soccer team topped this list despite only scoring one goal in seven matches during the 2015 Women's World Cup. This may be due to her declaration that this World Cup would be her last.
    3 Flags of the Confederate States of America B-Class 951,148
    It took the horrific act of the Charleston church shooting on June 17 to refocus the attention of South Carolina politicians and public at large to the fact that South Carolina was still flying the battle flag of the Confederate States of America near their state capitol. This flag causes a lot of controversy in the United States, though its general modern use as a symbol of racist oppression of blacks is undeniable. Will the flag of ISIS/ISIL be similarly used in the Middle East one hundred years hence? In any event, on July 10, after an emotional debate in the state legislature, the flag was finally taken down.
    4 Terminator Genisys Start-Class 875,698
    File:Graffiti in Shoreditch, London - The Terminator by Graffiti Life (9425010886).jpg
    This film marks the fourth attempt in 12 years to restart the dormant Terminator franchise without the aid of its creator, James Cameron. To date, if Metacritic and IMDb are anything to go by, the only remotely successful of these resuscitations was the hugely underrated TV series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. One wonders if audiences are wishing they'd watched that when they had the chance, because the box office numbers for this flick are bad. Really bad. As in, "made as much in its first five days as Terminator Salvation made in its first weekend" bad. Salvation, mind you, was the black sheep of the series until now. Even after two weeks, the movie has made barely $70 million. All this is rather perplexing, since the two things that usually drive movies up this list are box office and controversy, and so far the only controversy generated by this film is from the few scattered critics who don't consider it utterly terrible. Perhaps it was the presence of Emilia Clarke (currently the second Game of Thrones star to take on the role of Sarah Connor). Or perhaps, if this ageing Terminator fan could be wistful for a moment, the critics are wrong when they say the Millennial generation has no love for this franchise. Perhaps they rushed to their tablets incensed at the terrible reviews; determined to learn who and what was responsible for vandalising the legacy of this landmark work of science fiction. Or perhaps it means nothing at all. Who am I to guess?
    5 Eiji Tsuburaya C-Class 854,672 Want a quick route to temporary posthumous fame? Become the subject of an interactive Google doodle. Which is exactly what happened to the creator of Ultraman this week.
    6 Baahubali (film) C-Class 810,328
    At $41 million, this sprawling, two-part historical epic is the most expensive film in Indian history (no, it isn't actually Bollywood, since it was made in South India, much to Bollywood's chagrin). Starring the Telugu actor Prabhas (pictured), the first part, subtitled "The Beginning", broke box office records upon its release on July 10, earning Rs 2.15 billion ($34 million) worldwide in just 5 days.
    7 Carli Lloyd Good Article 796,339
    The midfielder's hat trick in the final against Japan helped clinch the USA the World Cup title, and made her a national hero in the process. Though not enough of one to top this list, apparently.
    8 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup C-class 775,963
    If America wins a tournament, you can be sure it will end up on this list. And while the old US of A hasn't exactly stormed the palisades as far as men's football is concerned, it's comfortably ensconced at the top of the women's game. Perhaps this challenge to the world will lead some of the more macho footballing nations to begin to take their female counterparts seriously.
    9 Ariana Grande C-class 706,116
    A fixture on this list last year, the former Disney poplet has struggled to maintain a presence this year. Until this week, when she was filmed licking a doughnut on a display counter and then putting it back, before declaring, "I hate America". Not sure if this qualifies as a Britney Spears-level meltdown, but it's certainly lifted her profile.
    10 United States women's national soccer team C-class 701,219
    File:Women's World Cup Results.PNG
    The US national team has now secured the World Cup title 3 times. If they were counted among the men's records, they would have a legacy as secure as Germany or Italy. Perceptions are changing though.


    Reader comments

    2015-07-15

    What happens when a country is no longer a country?

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByRcsprinter123

    The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.


    We return this week with an interview with a historical project that's still fairly active, WikiProject Former countries, which has a large amount of recognised content and a pretty large remit: countries that existed in history, but no longer exist as political entities. There are certainly a lot of those. Here to divulge their experiences are OwenBlacker and MirkoS18.

    What motivated you to join WikiProject Former countries? Do you have an academic or professional background in world history? Have you contributed to WikiProjects covering any other geographical topics?

    Have you contributed to any of the project's 44 Featured or 77 Good Articles? What challenges do project members face when improving former countries articles to FA or GA status?

    Your front page gives links to WikiProject Historical Atlas and WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Is this collaboration still actively maintained, and how does it help the net improvement to your content output as a project?

    Coat of arms of Transleithania (1868–1915).

    What is your favourite former country?

    What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?

    2015-07-15

    Shapps requests WMUK data; professor's plagiarism demotion

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByGamaliel

    InThe Register, Andrew Orlowski reports that three weeks ago, Grant Shapps filed a request with Wikimedia UK (WMUK) under the Data Protection Act 1998 "for all data relating to him". Shapps is a UK politician who was accused of editing the Wikipedia articles of political rivals in a matter that led to the removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools from Richard Symonds (Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), a WMUK employee, in an Arbitration case (see previous Signpost reports on the media coverage and Arbitration case).

    D’Arcy Myers, chief executive of WMUK, told Orlowski that WMUK was "fufilling" Shapps' request and that "WMUK has not issued an apology to Mr. Shapps as the charity has not been involved with this issue." Orlowski wrote that he was "puzzled" by this response. Orlowski, a frequent critic of Wikipedia who has been reporting on the encyclopedia for at least a decade, outlined the separation between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and WMUK for his readers, but did not explain the distinction between Symonds' paid employment at WMUK as office and development manager, responsible for finances and reports, and his volunteer role on the encyclopedia as a functionary using checkuser and oversight tools. Orlowski did note instances where Symonds might have blurred those roles, writing that Symonds used a WMUK email address to communicate with The Guardian regarding Shapps, and claimed that Symonds "frequently" used his checkuser tool "on WMUK time". (July 13)

    Plagiarism allegations lead to demotion for ASU professor

    Professor Matthew Whitaker

    The Arizona Republic reports that popular Arizona State University history professor Matthew C. Whitaker was demoted following an investigation into plagiarism accusations. Whitaker was demoted from full to associate professor and from director to co-director of ASU's Center for the Study of Race and Democracy. ASU's provost wrote that an "investigation identified significant issues with the content of" Whitaker's 2014 book, Peace Be Still: Modern Black America from World War II to Barack Obama.

    Whitaker has been dogged with plagiarism allegations for years. His 2008 book African American Icons of Sport: Triumph, Courage, and Excellence contained material regarding Muhammad Ali and Serena and Venus Williams taken from Wikipedia. At the time, Whitaker blamed a freelance editor working from his outline and wrote "unfortunately and unknown to me, the freelance editor inserted verbatim sections from Wikipedia and other online sources without rewording them and without quotations or attribution." In 2012, a previous ASU investigation into this and other allegations concluded that Whitaker was not guilty of "systematic or substantial plagiarism". The Phoenix New Times reports that this conclusion was the subject of much controversy among bloggers, such as the anonymous author of the blog "The Cabinet of Plagiarism", and even some of his colleagues, one of whom resigned from a tenure and promotions committee in protest. (July 13)


    In brief

    Pluto photographed by the New Horizons probe. More than meets the eye?



    Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.




    Reader comments

    2015-07-15

    Wikimedia Foundation releases third transparency report

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByAeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti

    The following content has been republished from the Wikimedia Blog. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author alone; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section. For more information on this partnership see our content guidelines.

    This report demonstrates the Foundation's continuing commitment to openness and transparency.


    The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce the release of our latest transparency report. Transparency is one of Wikimedia's core values, and we are committed to communicating clear and accurate information about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects to our user community.

    In August 2014, we published our first transparency report, which detailed the number of requests we received to disclose user data or alter or remove content from the Wikimedia projects between July 2012 and June 2014. We updated the report in April 2015 with new data, real-life examples of the types of requests we receive, and additional categories such as "voluntary disclosures" and "right to be forgotten" requests.  We are happy to continue this tradition with our latest update, covering January to June 2015. During this time, we received 234 alteration or takedown requests and 23 user data requests, none of which we granted.

    In summary, the report tracks five key data points:

    Content alteration and takedown requests. None of the 234 general content removal requests we received during this time period were granted. Nine of the content alteration or takedown requests we received came from government entities. In general, we receive relatively few content removal requests because members of the Wikimedia community work hard to address any concerns relating to content accuracy and compliance with project policies. When we do receive takedown or alteration requests, we push back to ensure that Wikimedia platforms remain open, neutral, and uncensored, so that the community can decide what content belongs on Wikimedia projects.

    Copyright takedown requests. During this period, Wikimedia received 21 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests and granted only three (14.3%) of those requests. Wikimedia users play a critical role in monitoring content to ensure copyright compliance; as a result, we receive very few DMCA requests compared to other technology companies. All DMCA requests that we do receive are thoroughly evaluated to determine whether the request is valid, whether the content is in fact infringing, and whether any legal exceptions (such as fair use) may apply.

    Right to be forgotten. Wikimedia received four requests for content removal based on the "right to be forgotten," and did not grant any of those requests. For more on the right to be Forgotten, we invite you to read our statement opposing the scope of the relevant European Court opinion and its implications for free knowledge.

    Requests for user data. Wikimedia is strongly committed to protecting user privacy. None of the 23 user data requests we received (including informal government and non-government requests, one criminal subpoena, and one court order) resulted in the disclosure of nonpublic user information. Each request we receive is carefully reviewed to ensure that it is legal and complies with our stringent standards. Even if a particular request is valid, we often do not have any information to provide; we collect little nonpublic user information, and retain that information for a very short time.

    Voluntary disclosure. On rare occasions, the Wikimedia Foundation becomes aware of concerning information on the projects, such as suicide or bomb threats. Consistent with our privacy policy, in these cases, we may voluntarily provide information to the proper authorities in order to resolve the issue and ensure safety. Between January and June 2015, we made 14 such disclosures.

    This report also features story highlights from this period and provides answers to many frequently asked questions. We invite you to consult the full report to learn more about our efforts to protect user privacy and maintain the integrity of the Wikimedia projects at http://transparency.wikimedia.org.

    Aeryn Palmer, Legal Fellow*
    Jim Buatti, Legal Fellow
    * This transparency report would not have been possible without the help of many individuals, including Moiz Syed, Michelle Paulson, Geoff Brigham, Prateek Saxena, Dhvanil Patel, Lexie Perloff-Giles, Jacob Rogers, James Alexander, Christine Bannan, Arielle Friehling, Alex Krivit, and the entire Communications Team.


    Reader comments

    2015-07-15

    The Wikimedia Conference and Wikimania

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByPine and Resident Mario

    Wikimedia Conference 2015

    Wikimania 2015 is underway in Mexico City, and one of its sessions—a scheduled follow-up to the annual Wikimedia Conference that was held in Berlin in May—is good reason to provide a retrospective of that Conference.

    The Wikimedia Conference gathered together leaders and staff of Wikimedia affiliate organizations, groups of volunteers such as the Affiliations Committee and the Funds Dissemination Committee, and WMF Board and staff members. The conference was held in Berlin, hosted by Wikimedia Germany, and involved 165 participants from 53 nations. Representatives were from 39 chapters, one thematic organization, and 17 user groups.

    One of the highlights was the presentation by WMF executive director Lila Tretikov, in which she spoke of WMF collaboration with affiliates through improved partnerships, practices, and tools. In previous years the relationship between WMF and affiliates has been strained by financial disputes; governance issues with Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia UK; "concern by the Foundation about budget and staffing growth, lack of demonstrable impact on WMF sites, and governance among eligible affiliates"; and the drama around the now-defunct Wikimedia Chapters Association. Many affiliate representatives welcomed the positive tone of Lila's presentation, which noted that "organizations can do what individuals cannot do alone", and acknowledged that Wikimedia affiliates have important roles in building collaborations with institutions around the world.

    Other conference highlights included:

    An extensive report and commentary about the conference, including presentations and photographs, is available at User:Pine/Wikimedia Conference 2015 travelogue. P


    May 13 highlights
    May 14 highlights
    May 15 highlights
    May 16 highlights
    May 17 highlights

    Brief notes

    2015-07-15

    When angels and daemons interrupt the vicious and intemperate

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByXanthomelanoussprog and Adam Cuerden
    Before we begin, enjoy a featured selection of Indonesian treats, or kue, created by Gunawan Kartapranata.

    This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 28 June to 4 July.


    Featured articles

    The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate shows "Destroying Angel and the Daemons of Evil" at their last gig before they changed their name to "The William Etty Experience".

    One Featured article was promoted this week.

    Featured lists

    Edgbaston Cricket Ground is the primary cricket ground of the Warwickshire County Cricket Club - but, as List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds shows us, not the only one.

    Seven Featured lists were promoted this week.

    Featured pictures

    Meripilus giganteus, also called the "giant polypore" or "black-staining polypore", because people are sometimes terrible at names.
    Title page to an early vocal score of Giuseppe Verdi's La traviata, showing the c. 1700 costumery the censors forced on the show, instead of the then-contemporaneous setting Verdi desired.

    Fourteen Featured pictures were promoted this week.



    Reader comments

    2015-07-15

    Tech news in brief

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • ByWikimedia tech ambassadors

    The following content has been republished as-is from the Tech News weekly report.

    Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

    Recent changes

    Problems

    Changes this week

    Meetings


    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.



    Reader comments

    If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.

    Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.

    Archives

    Newsroom

    Subscribe

    Suggestions


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-07-15&oldid=1183873126"

    Categories: 
    Wikipedia Signpost archives 2015-07
    Wikipedia Signpost Single archives 2015
    Hidden category: 
    Pages with missing files
     



    This page was last edited on 7 November 2023, at 00:56 (UTC).

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Mobile view



    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki