The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-07-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• It is a sad day when Arbcom so completely get things wrong. Unless we are to count our blessings that more mistakes have not been made. We see here good editors banned, and more de-sysopping. We see in the Perth case a storm in a tea-cup that almost became a ban-fest, and one of the three admins involved being picked out. And the Fae case beggars belief. The committee gives the appearance of siding with a party of harassers, take no account of the principles of Wikipedia policy, or of common human decency, assumes an enormous amount of bad faith and takes powers into its hands to ban a user, apparently for discussing his case off wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
  

I'm sorry, I disagree. Arbcom is for resolving conduct issues that the community cannot solve. Clear-cut "Bad Egg" cases will generally not need their intervention. So most cases will involve Good Editors who are accused of having Jekyll and Hyde aspects, strongly enough to cause discord in the community.

Arbcom typically does a reasonable job of considering admonishments and lesser sanctions where possible. Tougher sanctions - including bans and desysoppings - are limited to situations where i) there is a pattern of poor behaviour which is toxic and whose direct as well as indirect chilling effect cannot be balanced by the fact that the same user is being helpful elsewhere; ii) there is an unwillingness to comprehend or admit that certain behaviour was not acceptable, and therefore a lack of confidence that it won't be repeated or can be controlled with lesser measures; or iii) bright line violations that cast real doubt on judgment (and where some deterrent is needed for the bright line to be maintained).

At least one of these situations seems to apply in all the current and other recent major-sanction situations. We can all second-guess if they got it exactly right for each Mr. Hyde, but that's beside the point. Reasonable people will disagree - that's why those situations got to Arbcom. But it's telling that most of the criticism is "...but Mr. Hyde was provoked", or "someone else was worse", or "but Mr. Hyde is most of the time sweet and sunny Dr. Jekyll". That misses the point.

Now I do think Arbcom should get better about *explaining* their rationale holistically. It starts that way, but when Committee members can't quite agree and cases drag on, one senses frustration and a desire to move on as soon as some hodgepodge is cobbled together that every committee member can live with or no longer cares to argue about. Some Arbcom members vote to close cases before it's even quite clear, with all the conditionals and alternatives, what is the final decision they are voting to close on! Given by this time cases will have dragged on for weeks anyway, I would urge arbitrators to take the couple extra days to tie up the decision in a bow, and in particular polish up the "story" (i.e., combined message of the principles, findings, and remedies) they have voted to adopt, which parts of the community will then be reading assiduously to reach closure on the whole unpleasant chapter and/or draw conclusions for appropriate behaviour in comparable situations. Otherwise, we're left intuiting this from incomplete information or from the ebb and flow of the discussion on the proposed decision and talk pages - and those aren't pretty (any more than the underlying conflict). Martinp (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As you say "Some Arbcom members vote to close cases before it's even quite clear, with all the conditionals and alternatives, what is the final decision they are voting to close on!" and this is typical of the slapdash manner in which the cases can be handled. Jclemens even boasts on his talk page of not being "deliberative", where he also appeared to offer a "retrial" as an alternative to him making an apology for accusing an editor of something they hadn't done. With this kind of unprofessional approach, it is no wonder that ArbCom consistently come up with bad decisions, almost to the point where one can simply reverse the ArbCom decision to come up with the right one! My historical respect for ArbCom was based on the amount of work needed to take evidence into consideration, I am however assured by a sitting Arbitrator that they do not read the workshop pages, thus rendering the whole process a waste of time. Moreover, and more importantly the committee's grasp of policy and good governance seems sadly lacking, and their understanding of the human issues nonexistent. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I am going to disengage here. I thought this might be an arena for people to exchange views on the disposition of a couple of cases that could materially affect the tone for what is acceptable interaction on en:wp. But instead we have our own private echo chamber: my opening salvo was clearly tl;dr for people, and you seem to be unhappy with Arbcom in general and seeking venues to broadcast it. I think you're being unnecessarily strident; I would not be surprised that you think I have rose-coloured glasses or worse. Peace. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Richard in some ways. The burden placed on ArbCom to act as judges is inhumanly great. Arbs devote a huge amount of time and work very hard to give fair rulings, but they are still volunteers and their time is limited. Serving on the Arbitration Committee is a great personal sacrifice and act of community devotion, and even still, the best efforts of the best arbitrators will not permit them to accomplish the impossible task of considering all the evidence put before them in a short time. An "ideal fairness" in arbitration will never be achieved; what I do think that they provide is excellent arbitration in any case and the best in the circumstances. I also regret when users who are found to do both desirable and undesirable work are totally blocked. I wish that there were a way to accept desirable contributions and to manage undesirable ones. I support all users who support the community in resolving issues outside of ArbCom for the sake of a good community experience, for the sake of saving the good contributions of controversial editors, and for the sake of relieving the burden on ArbCom members themselves. I would not endorse Arbitration reform but I do think that the community could do more to support the Arbitration committee and dispute resolution processes in general. For those of you who have not visited in a while, check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and also see the new WikiProject Dispute Resolution. I would direct anyone who wants to talk broadly about the research into preventing disputes on Wikipedia to write to User:Steven Zhang, a Wikimedia Fellow who is exploring the issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry is right that the amount of work required of an Arbitrator is potentially extremely large. (I asked three arbitrators at Wikimania how much time they typically spend on Arbitration per week, and one answered me, so I still have no real figures to base quantitative judgements on.) This indeed is a good part of the reason that I have suggested that en banc hearings are a bad idea as either Arbitrators rely overmuch on the drafting Arbitrator (which seems to be the case) or an extremely large amount of resource is used. (With a large number of arbitrators both can be true.) Instead a panel of three or five should generally be used. The second point, which I think is very often overlooked, is that the subjects of the case are involved in a time commitment an order of magnitude larger - with the important distinction that they have not volunteered for it. This needs a more nuanced approach to tackle. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

"Arbcom is for resolving conduct issues that the community cannot solve." The Perth drama, however, had ceased within hours of its commencement and the community, left to itself, solved the matter without any trouble at all. The move war, while unfortunate, had absolutely no impact upon this - in fact, a later RM was more decisive than the original one. It was my view at the time that it should not have been taken to ArbCom, it should not have been accepted by ArbCom, and it should not have resulted in anything more than a slap on the wrist for all concerned as this would reflect the actual level of damage done (while emphasising that the behaviour is discouraged and falls short of the expectations of an admin on this site). I agreed with the arb who said they would have no sympathy for second offences, but all of these were "first offenders" with long, largely (in one case completely) unblemished records stretching back years, all being accused of a single moment of misjudgement which none of them sought to compound after the fact. And as for the Fæ matter, I agree that that was ridiculous - the sanctions which passed look like a pile-on, and I'm not convinced with the evidence provided that the last one should have passed at all. Orderinchaos 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• A quick correction - the ArbCom decision states that I posted "another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website". The Signpost uses the phrase "undisclosed personal information". In fact, the information that I posted was a publicly available WHOIS record, so I believe the awkward wording is intended to convey that the information was not disclosed by Fæ on Wikipedia although it was freely available information. Also, I prefer to be referred to in gender-neutral terms. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Setting aside the controversies of the Fae and Perth case (on which I have opinions, but don't see productivity in airing them), I'd like to talk about the Falun Gong remedy of Mandated External Review. IIRC, Heresfold said that it was meant to be an alternative to protection or a topic ban, instead placing the articles under protection with regards to specific editors, and requiring them to make edit requests. It seems to me to be a tool that the community should employ more broadly, as it has high potential success. I think it's ideal for an editor who has tendentiousness and/or POV issues but is also adding information that improves the project; restrict them to contributions that gain consensus, but allow them to contribute their knowledge and research. This might also be a solution for paid advocates down the line. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When is an island not an island?

"John Rae (1846-7), acting on a suggestion made by Franklin in 1828 and 1836, and under a commission from the Hudson Bay Company, traced on foot the whole coast between Fury and Hecla Strait on the summit of Melville Peninsula, and the base of Boothia Peninsula, thus joining Parry's north-western with Ross's easternmost limits. He passed the winter at the base of Melville Peninsula, which was a low isthmus, thenceforth called Rae Isthmus, forty miles across and seven-eighths lake, like that which formed the base of Boothia Peninsula; and in both cases there were two lines of lake across the isthmus. "

Source: http://www.archive.org/stream/canadaptiiigeogr00rogerich/canadaptiiigeogr00rogerich_djvu.txt

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's Melville Island (Northwest Territories and Nunavut). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops. That Mellville sure did get around! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A better answer to the island question: HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen. Or, for a more in-depth view, look at cracked.com. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Har har, yeah that was a good one. Shame the ship article isn't an FA yet. Should we badger Sturmvogel? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dutch ships aren't the easiest to find sources for, especially a minesweeper. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• True, true... you'd probably have to be in-country to get the data... if it's been declassified. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Most likely. Not much gets written about Dutch ships in English, and there isn't an abundance of it in Dutch either. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good one - but for the reverse situation see Inchmickery. Ben MacDui 17:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Or a similar situation in Japan – Hashima Island! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I love reading the signpost, keep up the good work. Bawolff (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

«The promised second Wikimania special, focusing on some of the prominent sessions, will be published when videos of them are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons». That is, in a few months? Nemo 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the investigative report was extremely helpful. The community should know when people in positions of authority and influence at Wikipedia are subjects of ArbCom cases or other serious accusations. Indeed, User:Fae has been indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. I am worried that some of the proliferating Wikipedia/Wikimedia chapters could become banana republics run by people with agendas that may not always be aligned with Wikipedia's mission. I am dubious that giving money to the chapters is a good idea – I wonder if our donors think it's a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean with "people in positions of authority and influence at Wikipedia"? Administrators? Bureaucrats? ArbCom members? I don't see how it's relevant to what we were discussing, chapters have no influence over Wikimedia projects, by bylaws: they're independent organizations. Cheers, Nemo 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• The issue with the report, in my opinion, wasn't the topic of discussion. It makes complete sense why that would be covered. The issue was how it was covered, with a lot of outright speculation (and when it's negative speculation at that, it's that sort of thing that makes it a hatchet job) and a lot of "This person said this negative thing about this person who said this person was bad". I mean...that's not reporting, that's tabloid gossip. Silverseren^C 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree the story was rather sensational. It wouldn't have been too hard to cover the topic properly without all the muckraking. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, such was my feeling too. It was the tone and the balance of content, rather than the content itself, which was at major issue. I actually felt sick reading it. Orderinchaos 19:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find the Signpost extremely helpful. I didn't even know there were "Chapters" until a few months ago through Signpost coverage. I don't always agree with the coverage - like the happy cheery coverage of events attended by a few people about a politically correct topic, and only included (in my opinion) because some editor has pull or is an employee of WMF. But, all in all, the Signpost is the only "other" voice available to an editor like me. Mathew Townsend (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with the very first comment (by Mike Peel) on the previous Signpost report. In fact I seem to recall that the words I used during some real-life discussions during my stay in the USA were tendentious and potentially libellous. Although I regard the Signopost as an essential feature of Wikipedia/WikiMedia, I have had occasion in the past to criticise/correct some of the milder inaccuracies in research/reporting. I firmly believe that Signpost must hold itself above red-top style reporting, stay neutral, and strive to be a quality (online) newspaper that represents the (hopefully) academic quality of an encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that someone decided it'd be fun to make the news and be the story - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd way to want to have a bit of fun. Maybe we should try shooting ourselves - even if it doesn't work we might die of laughter ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has become de rigeur to whine accusations of "tabloid" style whenever reading something you don't like in the Signpost. Take a look at any major broadsheet newspaper to find exactly the same style. Sorry it offends powerful interest groups—that's not going to stop balanced investigative coverage in the future. Tony (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• No one want to stop balanced investigative coverage - but let's just have some. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I might understand your complaint if we'd not included extensive quotes in support of Fae, by Ziko and Deryck Chan. But we went to some trouble to cover both sides. Thank you for your interest. Tony (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering there were several people in the comments in the Special Report, such as Ziko, that stated that their comments were either taken out of context or that they never said such things in the first place, it's hard to trust anything said in the Special Report as being anything close to accurate. Silverseren^C 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Before you make serious accusations, get your facts right. Fine, ask Ziko for a copy of the email—or I'll send it to you. Tony (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • There's probably work at the Register if you hurry. (Pays better than the Inquirer, I'm told.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • They couldn't afford me. Tony (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather certain that the issues with RfA aren't how perfect or not the people pass, but how many pass. And the issue is that there is only 4, apparently. Admittedly better than the 2 or so of earlier months this year, but far less than the multiple double digits of years past. Silverseren^C 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly true, but assuming they all pass (which looks likely), six editors will have passed RfA this month—all with flying colors. It sure isn't what it used to be, but it's a reason to be optimistic. David1217 ^{What I've done} 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll be more optimistic about it once we manage to do it for three months in a row. Just one month could be a random blip in the system, without any indication of improvement to the overall problem. Silverseren^C 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree that alleged higher standards have been the cause of the dearth of nominations. As the initiator of what was probably the largest in-depth investigation into what is is wrong with RfA, I remain convinced that the core issue is/was one of the behaviour of the voters. Recent RfAs have been less (but not entirely) subject to heated comment and unreasonable votes and may possibly be the reason for the sudden spate of new nominations, but to reiterate SilverSeren, the number of RfAs is still to low to be indicative of a trend that the process has finally cleaned itself up. I hope it has. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that ArbCom seems to be more willing to desysop might augur well for increasing the pass rate, once voters know that it's not a job for life—that is, they might be just a little less risk-averse if underperforming and rogue admins can more easily be demoted. That's a reason for forging ahead with a community-based desysopping process, and I believe one is in the making as we speak. Tony (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! An excellent, common-sense viewpoint. There are certainly dangers in actively encouraging PR departments to show up and start shovelling material onto our talk pages but it makes more sense than the status quo, which amounts to giving the choice between stealth or a pile of paperwork. Stevage 10:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Doing Wikipedia properly" means concentrating on improving articles at least in the medium term, not just making short-term gains for one side of a debate. Which of those two options, quite honestly, do those who pay the paid editors think they are paying for? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree that there needs to be some sort of official channel for PR departments and other biased editors to go through. While ideally we would have objective, unbiased people write about everything, companies have a vested interest in making people edit their Wikipedia articles and it is hard to detect and prevent such biased editing without damaging Wikipedia's open nature. Although I'm not a fan of industry self-regulation (or rather, I think it doesn't work), by making common agreements on ethics PR companies can change the way the industry is run, it just remains to be seen how substantial this will be. I would be in favor of a Wikipedia that invites paid editing, with conditions attached. The author mentions a lot of the ways paid editors can contribute (such as being excellent at providing sources) greatly, so it seems like a bad idea to turn them away at the door. I don't think oversight and observation of such especially biased editors is too much to ask for, though; paid editors should certainly declare themselves to be such. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-regulation is one aspect, but we shouldn't rely on it. There's no silver bullet, but we can look at any option that will improve things more than hurt them and do what we can one step at a time. I think what's vastly important is improving instructions and encouraging good behavior, while punishing bad behavior. I feel right now the easiest and most effective way for them to contribute is through bad behavior.

Those reading this op-ed may also want to look at OrangeMike's interview, which isn't necessarily at odds. I think we need a PaidWatch and a COOP (sticks and carrots). Humiliation in the media has always been the biggest deterrent and I'm also interested in the idea of the Wikipedia community taking control over this tool, instead of leaving it to the media. A Wikipedia-driven investigation would be more fair, careful, and serve our purposes more than leaving it in the hands of the media. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The "what we can do" section has a lot of things that need attention and work:

• Investigate undisclosed paid editing (being done by PAIDWATCH)
• Embarrass companies for clear censorship attempts in situations where we can't reasonably AGF.
• Improving instructions like the COI Guideline
• Create an AFC-like system for request edits
• Give companies a method to voluntarily block their IP address
• Improve templates
• Raise content standards (just something to keep in mind)

I would be eager to work with folks that are interested in contributing to or discussing some of these projects. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• One of the best examples, I think, of a paid editor (I know this is about PR specifically, but it's related) becoming a volunteer and then also helping to serve the overall company article issue is User:Eclipsed. He's been diligently working in his Requested articles workspace on creating stubs for requested company and business articles. While he usually only makes a two to three sentence article for each one, since he wants to let the natural growth process of Wikipedia improve them further, he helps this along by also including a ton of reliable sources already properly formatted and everything. For example, look at Yellowstone Bear World, PooPrints, and Stiletto Spy School. Silverseren^C 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose and function of this contribution is to reduce the current free encyclopaedic editing of wikipedians to (unpaid) wage labouring. Most of us are happy with the concept that anyone can use our product for commercial purposes under CC-BY-SA; I'm not worried about this either. We've already outproduced Encarta, and we're going to eliminate all other generalist encyclopaedias—we are simply a superior group of producers in terms of supplying an encyclopaedia. The problem with this proposal is that it suggests transforming the actual process of writing the encyclopaedia, from one governed primarily by the editors themselves to one guided by disciplinary impositions from outside. Legitimising paid editors legitimises a process of reducing all other editors to unpaid "waged" editors. Similar processes happen with the "professionalisation" of credit unions, or community organisations, or churches. We need to prevent this occurring. If PR professionals suddenly want to start producing high quality reliable sources, and publishing them professionally, then all power to them; and, like similar producers, we would like them to note their new exciting works on the talk pages of articles and let us get on with it. But if they're paid, even if they do this off-wiki, to assemble documents or access to documents—regardless of POV—their paid work reduces my free work to unpaid waged labour. And I'm not willing to put up with that. Take use and sell our product—good. Take and make "for sale" my process of editing—I will take you to the dogs. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that they take our product and sell it that concerns me - although I have seen my/our contributions unattributed in published printed works claiming tacitly that it is their own work. My greater concerns are those paid editors who blatantly use our product as an additional online advertising medium to sell their products, services, and people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Kudpung. I agree that the use of wikipedia to promote things by COI editors is disturbing, but I see this as a "content" effect of COI. Many editors often discuss the negative "content" effects of COI, and rightly so. I'm interested in increasing discussion about the "process" effects of COI; such as paid editors making demands that wikipedians teach them how to use wikipedia's processes (ie: turning my free labour into their paid labour and profit), or paid editors demanding that we rapidly update pages for COI paid editors (ie: turning my free labour into controlled, subservient, bossed labour). I don't think these issues of importing wage labour relationships into the encyclopaedia's processes; or, of turning community controlled processes into "bossed" processes are adequately discussed yet. Though I agree in full with the "content" based criticism of paid editing, that these too will poison the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedians should feel obligated to train COIs, but we can give them better instructions. On the other hand, many editors will choose (of their own volition) to work with COIs because they enjoy it, want to, or are interested in seeing the article improved. I don't think PR people should feel we are in a position to make demands, rather than explore how we can bring value to wikipedia. Ultimately we serve the readers, and PR people are welcome to the extent that they help us serve the reader. The major aspect of this approach in the oped is it requires no training, no expertise, no help, and doesn't even necessarily require the COI to be neutral. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I regularly note the existence of scholarly articles on a topic pertaining to an article's talkpage, where I lack the experience reading time etc. to write into that article, and where I know or know of the author such that I can't write as an encyclopaedist, but would start writing as a historian or as a colleague. I don't think anyone has taken up the talkpage links that I've dropped ever. COI editors in PR feel an urgency conditioned by their external appointment; wikipedia doesn't have this urgency. Even the best COI editor, who politely leaves notes and discussions will probably start feeling pressure and urgency—even if they're already aware of how things work in editing regarding companies representing minor industries in small nations for example. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quickly handing urgent problems is seldom a Wikipedia strength, but it seems to me simple minor errors could be handled simply, if slowly, by something like this:

1. I am Phineas T Firefly, of PR firm Lyre, Lyre & Pantsafire, and we are advised by our client Amalgamated Baby Seal Furriers that this article gives the name of that firm's Senior Executive Deputy Vice President in charge of finding harder wood for the clubs is Beatrice Bunghole Batmobile. We believe this to be a typo, as her middle name is actually Bughole. Please correct this.
2. Phineas T Firefly again; this alert has gone unanswered for a week. In another week we shall correct it ourselves.
3. I, Phineas T Firefly, acting on behalf of Amalgamated Baby Seal Furriers, have corrected the error, the alert having gone unanswered for two weeks. (Each of these signed with the flack's own account in his own name, his user page offering a description of his job)

Ought something along these lines be accepted as usual procedure? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that way anyways. Silverseren^C 02:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical. PR is marketing to begin with. Now, if companies hope to correct what they view as incorrect or misleading info, and then leave a clean, shiny article for the world to read, well, this is a Wiki... it's interactive, unlike static advertising, like a billboard or a tv commercial with a captive audience. Competitors will get their own PR people jumping all over the articles about commercial companies, products, and so on, to give counter-perspective on everything. The result, as I foresee it, will be never ending edit wars, just like we currently have over arcane academic topics. It's a zero-sum game IMO.OttawaAC (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a great interview - thanks for being so forthright Mike! Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded! :) benzband (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work, as always, Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Orange Mike has the experience and wisdom to know that paid editing has the potential to be a significant issue to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia matures and becomes more influential, monied-interests will have a greater and greater temptation to adjust articles to their side of the story. This is generally not a problem when there are a lot of unpaid volunteers to keep an eye on things. But as editor loss becomes greater, the ability to keep an eye on these issues diminshes. I recently ran across CitiCorp executive William R. Rhodes and noticed that the article had been heavily edited by CitiCorp IPs. Nobody had noticed this issue for a number of years. So I'm concered that if we don't recruit more unpaid volunteer editors to help, we won't be able to fix the existing problems or keep up with new ones. So I would encourage everybody with similar concerns to welcome our new users and try to make Wikipedia a friendly environment because paid editors will be here regardless of how unfriendly things are. Kind regards 64.40.57.60 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the survey result and Mike is correct in accusing Ocaasi of misstating the results.

When asked if there are currently factual errors on their company or client’s Wikipedia articles, 32% said that there were (n=406), 25% said that they don’t know (n=310), 22% said no (n=273), and 22% said that their company or client does not have a Wikipedia article (n=271). In other words, 60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors.

I don't know if Ocaasi would like to make a note about the actual survey result. It certainly would be a fair use quotation since it being commented on.--BirgitteSB 12:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was merely repeating the PRSA's claimed conclusion of the study, not my own. I added 'publicized' to make that distinction more clear. I also added a link to the Investigative Report in the Signpost disputing that claim. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just my 2 penn'orth (unlike OrangeMike - I'm not an expert on the theories involved, but we are both very regular contributors to WP:EAR where we have to contend with many complaints from COI editors about their articles/edits being deleted). Wikipedia is suffering from a lack of experienced New Page Patrollers who can do the job accurately, which leaves a gaping gap in the capture of paid-for articles. The number of seriously inclined editors of non-contentious articles is apparently waning (whether or not this be due to fewer new editors, or editors leaving the project). The questions foremost in my mind are: Why should I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer when others get paid for it? which is a possible reason for the decline, and more importantly (as an admin): Why should I have to volunteer for free to clean up the COI mess? One possible solution is to provide a proper landing page for new registrations and article creation attempts, that clearly spells out what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be for, how they should be written, and that promoting a political candidate, a company, a product or service, an emerging garage band, or one's self, are not part of the philosophy that many (most?) of us joined the project for. I treat blatant COI editors with the same politeness and respect as I do anyone else, but it certainly stretches my patience to have to do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to extend and expand on the "economic" aspect of paid editing's effect on wikipedia's practices, that Orange Mike covers briefly twice, "Wikipedia does not exist as a convenience for them and their bosses." and "Only if I abandoned the pleasure and duty of being a legitimate Wikipedian; which means you'd have to pay me a damned good salary with a solid contract in order for me to make that heartbreaking choice." I already agree in full with Orange Mike's coverage of the effects on content on COI as "drinking from … the firehose of sewage." As Orange Mike notes, many Wikipedians edit because the "pleasure and duty" of the free work we do is radically different to being a clerical worker on lunch break. Wikipedia is a relief from the imposition of wage labour, and the control over the labour process exerted by machine design, process design and immediate supervision that exists in paid work. While wikipedia might have many faults as a work system, it is a work system where each editor has both an immmediate and a collective total freedom to attempt to redefine the work process. Moreover, we can work here knowing that the only motivation for work is the pleasure of the work itself, and the duty to the work itself. We can put being an encyclopaedist, the duty to the encyclopaedia and our readers, first in a way in which we can't when trying to feed ourselves from our labour. The problem is that there is a contradiction, an inherent opposition, between being a convenience for paid editors and their bosses; versus the duty and pleasure of encyclopaedism. To become a convenience, we lose encyclopaedism. This is true at the article level, where we are turned into process operating mechanical-turks, transcribing the demands of PR officials. This is true at the community level, where instead of being Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit; we become Britannica for free, now with improved access for PR wonks to fuck with the record. The choice is simple: if we wish to remain a free encyclopaedia, where duty and pleasure guides us to improve the encyclopaedia, we need to police paid editing as if (as they are) people who scab on our free work and try to enslave us. For example, the offer on a "professional services" site for an Administrator to keep content in articles clearly shows how the "wages" paid to one exist off the backs of every other wikipedian, and reduce their freedom to edit into an unpaid job. To the extent we accept paid editing, we betray the encyclopaedic project and our own freedom to edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think Orange Mike is terrific and I have a hunch that in about 3 hours drinking beer in a restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin, a reasonable advocate of the CREWE perspective and he could hammer out a deal to more or less settle the matter of COI editing. As he says (1) declarations of COI should be policy; and (2) input of those with COI towards NPOV and more accuracy should always be welcomed; and (3) reversion of real vandalism is never a problem. That doesn't leave a ton of area of disagreement, from my perspective. It comes down to a question of (A) is it okay for involved editors to make uncontroversial edits or not? and, if so, (B) in what manner can these edits be brought to scrutiny?; and further (C) what should be the mechanism for involved editors to move forward ideas about controversial edits? Three hours, ten beers, that could be solved. Getting such a deal through the dysfunctional labyrinth that is the WP decision-making process? Now that's another story... Carrite (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  Taking the liberty to editorialize a bit outside of the interview, I agree that there's more room for agreement than it often appears. I'm very curious what you think of WP:COI+ which incorporates most of the recommendations you've made above. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as very complicated, which will minimize participation levels. In my opinion we need to have a solid, iron-clad rule about mandatory COI declarations (with an associated proviso that there will be no arbitrary blocks or bannings of those making such a declaration on an existential basis) and then we need as a community to determine what sort of edits are kosher and which are forbidden by such editors. The line is somewhere between "no edits at all" and "anything goes." I honestly believe that, contrary to what some Wikipedians feel at a visceral level, MOST PR pros are not out to spam Wikipedia silly but just want some sort of honest and reliable mechanism to ensure that NPOV prevails for their clients. That can either be achieved by monitored direct editing or it can be achieved by some sort of new and substantial mechanism generating uninvolved editing by others. Given the thinness of the content-creation corps at WP, I think that monitored direct editing is probably the answer. Maybe COI certification helps get us there, but it needs to be a simple process that generates a universally-accepted credential, otherwise people would be taping a target to their back by becoming certified COI editors. So I don't know.

We all have our biases, every single one of us. To edit at WP one needs to be able to set them aside and really believe in and practice NPOV. That is a difficult standard and it will never be universal, sadly. There will always be problems. The best we can do is to attempt to educate newcomers to make them aware of this philosophy and its necessity in a massive collaborative project such as ours. I don't know if certification helps solve this or not. I suppose Orange Mike and others of his perspective are better people to ask... Carrite (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank for including details of the 1.20wmf8 rollout. If the history bug only affects the RecentChanges table, affected entries will anyway be deleted after 30 days (at least on enwiki), so it might be easier to let the past errors expire naturally instead of applying a retroactive fix to existing data. — Richardguk (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  History pages work on the revision table, not the recentchanges table. Bawolff (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Bugzilla:37225 was identified because of corruption to article size entries on pages based on recentchanges (watchlists and RecentChanges). It did not seem to corrupt revision entries on history pages, though I'm not sure whether the possibility has been ruled out. "History bug" is a slightly misleading description in the Signpost article. — Richardguk (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Oh ok, in that case I agree, retro-actively trying to fix RC table seems like a waste of effort. Bawolff (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is mostly me getting confused, I think, probably because I forget that the watchlists pulls rc entries and not revisions. Apologies for any confusion (I've tweaked the prose slightly). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well the bug title itself says "history" in it. Bawolff (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Aha! I'm off the hook *clutches gratefully to straws* :P - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think you've earned yourself more than a few straws for your community feedback! — Richardguk (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Enabling the page would still require local community consensus - As far as I understand, MzMcBride's proposal was for something enabled by default, not an optional feature. The reason why ?action=info is optional currently is because it has performance problems, the new action=info should it happen, would not have those problems (or have parts selectively disabled based on miser mode). Bawolff (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. For the curious, the old action=info looks like this: https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Main_Page?action=info Bawolff (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Enabled by default in MediaWiki, maybe, but having it enabled on existing Wikimedia wikis would either require consensus or a pitched battle. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  or people could just convinently forget to re-disable it ;) On a serious note though, usually concensus isn't required for newly developed features (Arguably its an old feature that would be re-developed, but the only reason the old feature was disabled is to prevent the servers from coming to a crashing halt) As far as I am aware WM hasn't actively disabled it, wmf wikis are just using the current mediawiki defaults. Bawolff (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think we're seeing a sea-change on the view that "consensus isn't required for newly developed features", but perhaps it's more a question of whether any links to the new page are actually visible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Its what happens when people keep developing somewhat odd (relative to the wiki-way) and highly user-facing features. Although most of the controversial ones have been extensions which traditionally did require concensuss. Bawolff (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Seems to me that, now that MzMcBride has refined the RFC to adding metadata at ?action=info (instead of moving metadata from edit/editpreview pages to ?action=info), support for the additional parameter should be largely uncontroversial and most editors would probably never even realise that it exists. But I am surprised that there was not more initial concern at the subproposal to disclose the number of watchers for any page, since moderately sophisticated vandals could learn to target pages that are not much watchlisted. — Richardguk (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Honestly the chance that a feature would get accepted that disclosed the number of watchers a page has when there's already a right restricting that (unwatchedpages) is pretty low in all probability. Bawolff (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify, S Page is part of the experiments team at the WMF. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 16:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• A critical thing to help SVG translation support would be to end the situation where people are driven to convert so much text into path data -- so much more difficult to edit and update, never mind search -- because the text handling and placement of WP's SVG renderer is so appalling. SVG has so much to offer, it's a crying shame that WP's SVG support is so poor, that people are forced to go to workarounds like this. The generally miserable state of libsvg has been an unaddressed issue for years -- will resources ever be put into either bringing it up to the mark, or replacing it with one of the other open-source SVG back-ends, that actually work? Jheald (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • librsvg isn't as bad as it used to be, but agreed that flowRoot support would be a great addition. I think recent calls to reinvestigate used Inkscape to convert to PNGs would be a good idea. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment that the 1932 Winter and Summer, and the 1960 Winter Official Reports are in the public domain. Either they were not copyrighted at the time or copyright was not renewed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)