BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:48 am

I get the feeling that Mr. Advocate was banned from Wikipedia, with your assent, Ms. Warfare, for exactly this knd of prosecutorial scrutiny. I would agree that it's not maximally collegial, but these obviously promotional articles of yours provide great examples of why it's needed. Not so much against IPs and new editors whose additions are scrutinized by new page patrollers and face the presumption that they are up to no-good, but against well-placed editors such as yourself. If my memory serves correctly, he was banned  – let me put this another way, you banned him – because he'd raised a red flag about the alleged COI edits of your fellow administrator. If true, this is problematic. Certainly no one should be banned for attempting to apply due diligence where the rest of you do not, even if the allegations were rebutted (Were they entirely baseless? Probably not.) He should be unbanned.

Now about that Dulmer article…I would be dinging you on this even if it *were* paid editing….creating articles around people's resumés is just not the way to write. Further up in this thread, I provided a list of junk sources in the HubSpot edit-a-thon articles. You should remove them and all the claims currently referenced to them. Not replace them with some other citations while the text remains the same. If you are not burdened with the task of replacing them, which is the totally wrong way to frame this anyway since it's the text not the references which is supposed to be negotiable, this won't take long at all. Then there is no mess to complain about.
Last edited by Proabivouac on Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by The Joy » Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:53 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:38 am
The encyclopaedic content, such as it is, relies on the random attention of uninformed and unempowered volunteers to protect it against deliberate manipulation. This is yet another example of how the magic of crowd-sourcing fails. It never was going to work, it does not work now, and it never will work.
You nailed it. :shock:
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by EarlStatler » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:55 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:38 am
.
Or we could point out that there is nothing in the Wikipedian system to stop this sort of thing happening. There is no clear guidance, because Wikipedia has no clear rules (and if you think it does, look again at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). If a former arbitrator finds it hard to see the line, how can other contrbutors be expected to do so? What defences can a community with no clear guidance put up against intentionally corrupt manipulation of the content when there is no group tasked with doing so, no resources for them to apply, and no clear set of rules to enforce anyway. The encyclopaedic content, such as it is, relies on the random attention of uninformed and unempowered volunteers to protect it against deliberate manipulation. This is yet another example of how the magic of crowd-sourcing fails. It never was going to work, it does not work now, and it never will work.
That was what I was thinking all the time when I was reading what has happend, Renee. Both TDA and GW seems to me integer people. I have not any reason to believe one of the two is lying.
Nobody leads a discussion in a good direction on wikipedia, and if you read that arbcom case it's one big chaos.
Crowd-sourcing and there is safety in numbers doesn't give a neutral result at the end. You can't give the power over such a huge project without any proper rule in the hands of a handful high school students. Because the same happend on WP-NL, most of the "big names" were when they came in the house years ago a student.
A project as Wikipedia needs good leaders. Wise leaders who knows what life is and who understand the real world. For instance Aggie, Crow and you should be perfect leaders, but now it is to late. Because Wikipedia is far beyond repair.

And I don't say GW couldn't be a good leader, but let's say in about twenty years when she has seen more of this world. Not when this all happend.
But isn't that the same in the real society? Because I don't believe there is so much different between the real world and the cyber world. Because people are the same, and nobody would think about it to let his firm or project lead by a few high school kids and young students without any experience.
We are from two complete different disciplines, I am from the practical side, and you from the intellectual. But we are saying exacte the same all the time. So, is there maybe a change it is true what we are claiming over and over?
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

sashi
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:26 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by sashi » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:22 am

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:41 am
The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:15 am
I can't speak for Renee, but Sashi is also indefinitely blocked. He was blocked by ArbCom in fact and that was while you were still on the Committee.
Ah, right. Went to check if Sashi was blocked and only saw the retired banner.
ahem. Unless someone's changed it, you saw a rewiring banner. (and of course my cat, who I hope you gave some water.)

I hate to be repetitive, but since you mentioned you had no comment on the email messages (see tldr) I sent you via the ArbCom listserve during your time on the committee I have not discussed my block further with you.

I have only asked you to write a BLP article for the fearless chief technical officer of the WMF, which has a top-five site among the use cases of its software product (a system that runs biblio.wiki, WikiSpooks, Encyclopedia Dramatica, TheLogicMuseum, Créolista!, encyc, as well as literally thousands of intranet and internet wikis for more specific purposes). I'm not asking you to dig into the past and justify yourself. I believe you could and would do the work respectfully, if you chose to undertake the projet. However, one can only wonder why minor figures seek to be in the phone book, while media-defense execs can have an unlisted bio.

In the same vein, I also believe Craig Minassian is more deserving of an encyclopedic BLP page than Alek Minassian, but this is not one of your areas of particular interest, so I haven't asked you about that. Moreover Minassian would have even greater WP:N problems, because the MSM doesn't talk that much about them (though the Reddit sub-geniuses did get covered on the Stephen Colbert Report for talking about him. ^^ )

tldr = marrow from ArbCom messages mentioned above.

There were two, I think, regarding the topic ban from Jill Stein's BLP back during the 2016 election when my naivety had only permitted me to perceive the slight stench of a coordinated smear campaign in the Green wing of the 'pedia. I believe they consisted primarily of the full statement that Lord Roem required I cut in half at AE.

There were a few (maybe 3) messages concerning Cirt's complaint about one respectful comment I made on the talk page of the Donald Trump Bibliography concerning his Sagecandor account's prolific produsing.

I don't know if you were still on ArbCom when Euralyus reblocked me so that whenever my daughter chooses to contribute she would not be told by a big red box of shame provided by the internet that her father was banned for "harassment and intimidation" (for respectfully -- if sometimes playfully -- looking under the hood of a broken-down system).

The rewiring is going slowly, but it has included a very minor effort to fill the void left by the MSM's reluctance to dig beyond the PR proactively spun them by Minassian Media (since 2010, according to Heather Walls -> §).

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by EarlStatler » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:29 am

You have to understand writing about Wiki-related persons is externe dangers, Sashi. Everything started with me when I said the article of Oscar van Dillen was not neutral. It costed me a abitroll topic ban about everything related to Wikimedia, WMF and it's managers. (Bestuurders)
And when I said they all could fuck themself a Global Lock and a Office Ban at the end. And still they can fuck themself. Or each other, that is also fine for me, I am living in a free, liberal country. And whoever tries to mute me in the North-Korean way can walk to the hell and and further on too.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Renée Bagslint » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:54 pm

It seems that there is increasing acceptance of the notion that edit-a-thons do not increase participation in Wikipedia: see, for example, Operation successful, patient dead from 2016 and How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around from 2017. Of course, it may be that organisers haven't seen these pieces, or don't believe them. And it's certainly clear that the WMF is happy to throw someone else's money at such things whether or not achieve their stated goals. But taking these reports to be a fair reflection of organisers' experiences, we may reasonably ask what someone organising an edit-a-thon, or providing the resources for it, expects to achieve. It seems clear that one answer is: to skew Wikipedia content in a direction the organiser or provider wants.

User avatar
EarlStatler
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by EarlStatler » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:12 pm

The whole problem to me seems the internet buisnes is a new industry what still is not established. There is much to much "easy money", there are no serious competitors, and much to much people who are thinking they are doing something very special and they are favourite like a kind of modern disciples. They have the idea they are the new world order, the ones who are ruling the world. They are untouchable, the world is turning because they are walking on it.
What Silicon Valley needs is a tremendous crisis to get them with there feet on the ground again.
If you're in a dogfight, become a cat!

GorillaWarfare
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:03 am

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by GorillaWarfare » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:23 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:48 am
I get the feeling that Mr. Advocate was banned from Wikipedia, with your assent, Ms. Warfare, for exactly this knd of prosecutorial scrutiny. I would agree that it's not maximally collegial, but these obviously promotional articles of yours provide great examples of why it's needed. Not so much against IPs and new editors whose additions are scrutinized by new page patrollers and face the presumption that they are up to no-good, but against well-placed editors such as yourself. If my memory serves correctly, he was banned – let me put this another way, you banned him – because he'd raised a red flag about the alleged COI edits of your fellow administrator. If true, this is problematic. Certainly no one should be banned for attempting to apply due diligence where the rest of you do not, even if the allegations were rebutted (Were they entirely baseless? Probably not.) He should be unbanned.
I was recused on that discussion.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:54 pm
It seems that there is increasing acceptance of the notion that edit-a-thons do not increase participation in Wikipedia: see, for example, Operation successful, patient dead from 2016 and How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around from 2017. Of course, it may be that organisers haven't seen these pieces, or don't believe them. And it's certainly clear that the WMF is happy to throw someone else's money at such things whether or not achieve their stated goals. But taking these reports to be a fair reflection of organisers' experiences, we may reasonably ask what someone organising an edit-a-thon, or providing the resources for it, expects to achieve. It seems clear that one answer is: to skew Wikipedia content in a direction the organiser or provider wants.
I actually agree with you on the point that edit-a-thons don't increase participation in Wikipedia—I don't know of anyone who's participated in an edit-a-thon (outside of volunteers) who have continued to contribute to Wikipedia with any regularity. That's a part of why you'll notice I haven't been very involved in edit-a-thons lately—I did the handful of them in 2012-13, but haven't continued to help with local work that New England Wikimedians has been doing. Several of my coworkers were interested in learning how to edit, though, so I agreed to do the one at work. It was not with the intention of them all becoming regular editors, it was with the intention of teaching them something they were interested in and hopefully getting a handful of articles out of it.

Proabivouac
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:54 am

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:23 pm
I was recused on that discussion.
I think we all know that this means nothing. Who better than you, who recused on the Gamergate case then changed your mind, I suppose because you were no longer sure that it would go the way you wanted it to go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... r_<7/3/1/0>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... d_decision

Here you were sure, so why bother? It had already been scheduled to occur immediately upon the arrival of 2016's incoming arbitrators (Keilana and Gamaliel!) whose opinions were already known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s_Advocate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... er_members

Anyway nothing stops you from unbanning DA now, or me for that matter.

But besides that, what about all the junk sources I'd listed earlier in this thread? Are you ever going to get rid of them? Again, it's a lot easier if you aren't burdened with "replacing" them with some other source. Just get rid of them and all the passages which are based upon them. If you lend me your password I'll do it for you, then return your account later that day.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: BLP inclusion discussion, GorillaWarfare

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:38 am

GorillaWarfare wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:29 am
There have been quite a lot of posts on this subject and I'm doing my best to keep up, would appreciate a little slack when I ask for clarification. The now-deleted Wikipediocracy posts are from a while ago, so I don't recall what on-wiki posts you're referring to. It seems there's a private message feature on this forum if you'd be kind enough to refresh my memory.
You shouldn't expect slack when you don't care to look two posts back in the conversation before throwing around false accusations as fact. While I have suggested or questioned you about whether you have done something, I do not believe I have ever stated something about you as fact unless I could verify it as fact. Perhaps you want me to presume that you are merely careless with the truth rather than outright lying, but the effect is the same.
I also mentioned electricity and wi-fi in that post (things that are available in my office 24/7). It is you that's choosing to single out food, not me.
I singled it out because your response suggested there was something special about it. Was that because it was not the food that is usually available?
No, I'm saying that I don't think it falls under the definition of paid editing.
Judgment is a big part of the issue here, though. Paid employees creating a Wikipedia page about someone they know to be affiliated with their company without disclosing that fact is in itself an issue. Safe to say you and your colleague already breached the COI guideline. Doing it at an event held by that company where they made any kind of expense specifically for that event to incentive participation puts it, at least, on the edge of that line with the Terms of Use. The FAQ regarding paid editing, linked from the ToU, does indicate that compensation can include "an exchange of money, goods, or services." So it is not enough that you don't get paid directly for the edits.
GorillaWarfare wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:43 am
I would also like to clarify, TDA, is this discussion sourcing some article you'll be writing for your newfound gig at Breitbart? I'm willing to discuss my Wikipedia involvement and other Wikipedia-related matters here, but I'm not interested in going further down the rabbit hole discussing my family/employer and hoping it won't end up in some hit piece trying to put me out of a job or draw negative attention to my family.
Had I any intention of writing about this I would not be discussing it in a public fora. None of this on its own would be relevant and none of your edits about your family would be newsworthy, even those that violated policy. While the living members of your family are not really private figures, it is not as if they even come close to being as significant as your great-grandfather. As it is, I would not try to put someone out of a job or target someone's family. I know the former is your friend Gamaliel's style, but not mine. Saying all that, prior to your question it didn't really occur to me to use any of this in a Breitbart article, but now that you mention it this HubSpot situation in particular could be relevant to something I might write in the future.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:38 am
Well, there seem to be several routes this discussion could take. One is to keep on jabbing at GW about things she did a decade or so ago which she might have done differently today. I suggest that anyone who wants to go down that route is asked to prefix each of their posts with a statement along the lines of "I hereby declare that I am entitled to raise this issue because I myself did nothing in my teens which on reflection as an adult I would have done differently". Another is to nitpick over whether an edt-a-thon on company premises in which participants eat company food and contribute about company matters is intrinsically corrupt, potentially corrupt, presents the appearance of corruption or is laudable; and whether the Wikipedians' manners and customs reflect that. Neither of these options will lead to any lasting change to anything, although they will almost certainly serve to discourage GW and indeed any other Wikipedians from ever participating in this sort of discussion again.

Or we could point out that there is nothing in the Wikipedian system to stop this sort of thing happening. There is no clear guidance, because Wikipedia has no clear rules (and if you think it does, look again at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). If a former arbitrator finds it hard to see the line, how can other contrbutors be expected to do so? What defences can a community with no clear guidance put up against intentionally corrupt manipulation of the content when there is no group tasked with doing so, no resources for them to apply, and no clear set of rules to enforce anyway. The encyclopaedic content, such as it is, relies on the random attention of uninformed and unempowered volunteers to protect it against deliberate manipulation. This is yet another example of how the magic of crowd-sourcing fails. It never was going to work, it does not work now, and it never will work.
I do not feel it is that simple. There is often a desire to look away from "the personal" and focus on the "big picture" yet as very much a big picture person, I think the influence of the personal is far too understated out of a desire for "good taste" and "politesse" in what is essentially a way to discourage valid criticism. You can think the particulars don't matter, but the big picture is not some indistinct separate thing. Those particulars constitute parts of a greater whole and one cannot truly understand the whole without understanding its constituent parts. Despite what GW said previously, some of the edits she made about her family were promotional and were against the rules even in that more lax period. We don't need to judge her for it or suggest she be held accountable for it, but it matters. That is because there is a pattern. Her editing about her family, then her editing about the professor at her university, and most recently the Hubspot-related editing. It is not limited to this as during the GamerGate ArbCom case she recused then unrecused some time after the case was accepted. You then have the situation that brought her before ArbCom a year later where she intervened to effectively override an administrator who declined to sanction Eric Corbett over minor violations of his gender gap topic ban. There are some legitimate concerns about her not recusing on the Lightbreather case as well (Lightbreather did apparently consider GW a sympathetic voice).

She is not unique in this respect. On the ProBoards WR and a bit here, I have talked a lot about Drmies and his undisclosed COI editing as well his carrying water for Volunteer Marek. Keilana notably took action against Eric in one instance where one can safely see a similar element of impropriety. I co-wrote a blog post on WO regarding Davies for similar actions as an arbitrator. Don't know if there has been any indication of the latter two being involved in COI editing, but there is a point here about favoritism and personal connections by people at the very top of the community on Wikipedia. Poor understanding of the COI guidelines and a lack of concern about straying from anything that could even be construed as a Terms of Us violation on GW's part is part of a broader problem. Speaking of it only in generalities is purposeless.

However, I would tack on to all this another important reason to bring this all up in relation to GorillaWarfare specifically. I mentioned it in a previous post, but that seemed to get lost in the discussion. GW was one of the arbitrators who signed on to a statement objecting to a Wikimedia Foundation essay on dealing with paid editing under the Terms of Use and she at the time suggested she played some significant role in the statement, which is often the case when one is the first signatory. So her involvement in the HubSpot edit-a-thon and her general history with COI editing takes on a very different nature in this context. Reasonable to suggest, for instance, that as someone who has repeatedly engaged in undisclosed COI editing she might be suspected of paid editing or subject to a reasonable claim of paid editing under the Terms of Use and as such had a very deeply vest interested in ArbCom rebuking the WMF essay. How big of a role did she play in getting that statement out?
Proabivouac wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:48 am
I get the feeling that Mr. Advocate was banned from Wikipedia, with your assent, Ms. Warfare, for exactly this knd of prosecutorial scrutiny. I would agree that it's not maximally collegial, but these obviously promotional articles of yours provide great examples of why it's needed. Not so much against IPs and new editors whose additions are scrutinized by new page patrollers and face the presumption that they are up to no-good, but against well-placed editors such as yourself. If my memory serves correctly, he was banned – let me put this another way, you banned him – because he'd raised a red flag about the alleged COI edits of your fellow administrator. If true, this is problematic. Certainly no one should be banned for attempting to apply due diligence where the rest of you do not, even if the allegations were rebutted (Were they entirely baseless? Probably not.) He should be unbanned.
Although she is right to state that she was recused, it is also the case that she was the only person from the Committee to speak to me prior to the ban. She was the one who confirmed receipt of my e-mails with an incredibly vague statement with no mention of my conduct being discussed. I do wonder if she recused because it involved me and, if so, why she would be the one to notify me about my e-mail being received. Feels a bit sketchy. Put it in the pile, I guess.

Regarding my ban, I wouldn't say my comments to the administrator were anything like this here. For one, there was no real need for making inquiries to the administrator. The facts spoke for themselves in that case. Were I to make a comparison it would be more like GW directly editing the article about HubSpot or some executive from the company in some significant amount. In other words, there was no real argument about whether a conflict of interest existed on the articles edited. No one ever rebutted. The most I got from ArbCom some eight months after my ban in their first official response to me was essentially "we don't agree with you" and a demand to drop it if I wanted to be unbanned. Certainly no effort was made to explain how or where they disagreed, nor any effort to explain why they believed my actions constituted harassment.

To her credit, she did at least seem to be largely mum at first as a recused Arb. Even recused Arbs have a nasty habit of injecting themselves into every facet of a case and simply not taking official action. However, she jettisoned that on Twitter in order to take shots at Auerbach in defense of her pal Gamaliel. As if Auerbach supposedly tipping off Breitbart about my ban where no one even knew the circumstances is the same as him complaining about a guy expressly and publicly going after his job.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests