The Wikback, RIP?

Things are quieter at
Wikback these days
Image from FlickrOne of my earliest postings was about UninvitedCompany's Wikback which is a forum designed to be a place where folk with an interest in Wikipedia and WMF projects could discuss things. (and one that would be run somewhat differently than Wikipedia Review)

At the time, I opined that there might be some inhibitory effects from some of the actions taken and rules in place, and that sparked 11 comments from various folk. I think that may have been my all time high, or pretty close! (Hi to all 3 of you readers still with me!) Some predicted it would fail, while others defended the idea.

Well, two months have went by since then, and it would appear that the activity levels at the Wikback have died down to very low levels. Apparently, in the past 7 days, there have been just 4 active topics, if this list is to be believed.

Not every forum that is started ends up a success. Sometimes it's just random chance as to whether something clicks. But sometimes it's the rules, the people or whatever. Is that the case here?

Could Wikback still spring to lively life? Or is the current activity level likely to be where things stay indefinitely? Or is it over? What do you think?

Stemming the rise of the machines?

The machines are reading
(c) Wikimedia Foundation Sometimes events move faster than we plan.

Another tidbit of my visit to the Wikimedia Foundation office Monday was that I got a preview of this post by Cary Bass, which addresses robots.txt, the bit of magic that controls what is searched and what is not. (more specifically, well behaved robots/spiders honor what it says and do not scan pages it names off... Less well behaved robots/spiders eventually get blocked completely once their bad behaviour is discovered.) Specifically, it makes the case that non articlespace pages ought not to be quite as visible in searches as articles, because unlike articlespace pages, which were designed to be read by the intended audience of the encyclopedia itself, they often contain bickering, name calling, or even worse, "userified" pages that contain clear BLP violations, fringe theories given undue weight or all sorts of other problematic content.

Unbeknownst to Cary, after Cary had written that blog post but before it published (the wonders of delayed publishing) Newyorkbrad posted this to the english wikipedia and foundation mailing lists. In it, he advances a remarkably similar thesis, that we should act to avoid giving undue weight to material that really isn't intended for the readership.

Bugzilla mascot, Image
via Wikimedia Commons
Partially in support of this, I entered an enhancement request in Bugzilla for code changes to make it easier to control what is and isn't in robots.txt... your thoughts or comments on that bug would be appreciated.

See also this mailing list post by Jimmy Wales in which he expresses agreement with the general idea that we should use this as a way to avoid doing unnecessary harm. Bravo!

As it turns out, this topic (among others) has been getting considerable discussion at the dreaded Wikipedia Review, but I believe Brad advanced the idea because it's a good idea, not because of the pressure that some were trying to exert. More on that topic later, but for a taste of it you can review this thread.

Doc quits

An Ostrich, although not one
with its head in the sand. Image
via Wikimedia CommonsDoc Glasgow, one of the leading voices in the effort to improve Wikipedia's handling of Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs) has apparently quit the project. (his goodbye statement, ironically enough, was first posted at Wikipedia Review!)

This is unfortunate. It's tempting to just dismiss this departure as one of many, point to UseMod's GoodBye essay, and say it doesn't matter, the project has thousands of contributors. And in fact that's what I usually do. But Doc's voice was a good one and an important one.

Consider this page on the BLP problem and why it's important, and the outpouring of discussion around it.

Or consider this proposal, for allowing marginally notable biography subjects to "opt out", now marked as rejected, and the discussion around it.

Or consider this proposal, for reversing the default outcome of BLP Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions to delete. It has led to this thread at the BLP page itself, in which SlimVirgin proposes adoption. (the straw poll shows it running at least 65% in favor of adopting it so that's something anyway)

Every one of those is from Doc or had Doc pushing hard for it. And those are just the ones I thought of offhand, there are others. Doc was one of the hardest workers on the BLP mess for quite some time.

Perhaps he just got disheartened at the apparent unwillingness of some in the community to admit that there is a BLP problem and that the current approach isn't handling it. Can't say as I blame him, the level of ostrich in the sand -ism seems quite high there.

If you agree maybe you would consider taking the Responsible Editing pledge? Those undersigned are either:
* already using accounts identifying their real identity (and will not use sock puppets on BLPs)
* OR pledging not to add content concerning living people
* OR intending creating separate accounts, linked to their real identities, for this purpose
I signed it. If you edit Wikipedia, you should consider doing so too.

Getting off Hivemind

If you're on Hivemind (the site, not the Hivemind OS software) and you want to get off, all you have to do is publish your real name on your Wikipedia page... simple right?

Except my real name's been there all along. Very first edit to the page, in fact.

But I got added to Hivemind recently. No. I'm not giving you the link to Hivemind, it gets enough inbound links as it is. Trying to ask Brandt why gets zero reply.

Maybe it's more like you have to also not annoy Daniel Brandt by calling him a weenie (or worse, see this blog post). Or maybe you have to get behind whatever his latest hobby horse is... delete whatever he is hot about, sign whatever petition he is keen on, etc. Or maybe ??? Who knows?

Point is, if you want to be seen as acting on principle, as Brandt claims to be doing, you have to actually act on principle, and not act based on personal grudges.

That's what I try to stick to, and "acting on principle" is precisely what I was arguing in defending the redirect deletions... the principle of deleting them was correct even if Daniel Brandt himself was not a nice person.

Else, if you consistently don't act on principle, you're just a bully. As Moulton pointed out, Brandt's actions fit the description.

Kato justified Brandt's tactics here. I suspect that there is some validity to the claim that you have to fight unfairly if you have been treated unfairly. But on the other hand, is attacking those who most want to help the most reasonable way to effect change?

I don't think so. Do you?

Money can't buy happiness?

Sometimes following tangents finds you interesting things. Danny's "White Fathers" blog post yesterday on what really would help folk in Africa, whether the WMF's mission of knowledge sharing was the most needful thing started the wheels turning for me.

Those wheels got a push from this thread on Wikipedia Review, and from Danny's "Congo" response to it here. I think maybe sometimes we lose track, in our situations, of how things really are and aren't, and what we can do about them. What I'm about to say should in no way be taken as diminishing how tough things are in places like the sub Sahara, the Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the like. They're tough, make no mistake, way tougher than in the rich world...

So when I hear people saying "Money can't buy happiness?" I want to call BS. First, take a look at this classic essay by John Scalzi, "Being Poor" It's a rich world essay to be sure, but it drives home the point... being poor really really sucks.

Then take a look at this New York Times article... Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All ... Granted, its a study of the rich world, and of the well off people within it, but (quoting)

The fact remains that economic growth doesn’t just make countries richer in superficially materialistic ways.

Economic growth can also pay for investments in scientific research that lead to longer, healthier lives. It can allow trips to see relatives not seen in years or places never visited. When you’re richer, you can decide to work less — and spend more time with your friends.

That's rich world stuff... but the same thing is true in the less rich world. As Ben Yates cited in a "White Fathers" reply, cellphones can make a difference, and that says to me that aid isn't the solution. Changing society is the solution. Economic growth is the solution. Knowledge is the solution. Danny's right when he says an encyclopedia per se isn't the answer, that more thought is required, it has to deliver the things that are needed. But those who decry encyclopedias and economic and societal change in favour of direct aid? They miss the mark.

Money can't buy happiness? Tell it the the lady in Alabama with the 800 dollar car. Tell it to the mother in Gambia without the money to buy a sack of maize.

Money CAN buy happiness.... but the best kind of money is money you control because you earned it, because your society enabled it, not money that dropped in your lap.

More on the BLP policy

A biography, although
not of a living person :)
Image via Wikimedia CommonsYes, this is the 4th time I've written about the topic of Biographies of Living Persons (or BLP for short) , and unfortunately, I expect it won't be the last. (here are screeds one, two, and three)

Wikipedia user Doc Glasgow has written an excellent summation of the problem on a user subpage The_BLP_problem. It also includes analysis of several of the possible solutions that have been offered in various places lately. Those who say there is no problem really really need to read this page, it's very well done.

Wikipedia Review folk thought so highly of it that they reproduced it, verbatim (as of when it was copied) as one of their editorials. This topic is now getting more and more attention so I'm hopeful that some progress will be made. As I've said before, the stakes are too high, and the injuries possible to those affected by BLP too risky, not to do something.

To see the magnitude of the problem, take a look at the Some Statistics section in the WR editorial (reproduced from somewhere else I can't find at the moment):

Maintenance category	Articles	Percent
Total BLP articles (Category:Living people)	259210	100.00%
Cat:Articles lacking sources	13908	5.37%
Cat:Articles with unsourced statements	13740	5.30%
Cat:Articles needing additional references	5475	2.11%
Cat:Orphaned articles	3157	1.22%
Cat:Articles to be expanded	2511	0.97%
Cat:Articles with topics of unclear notability	1971	0.76%
Cat:Articles lacking reliable references	1918	0.74%
Cat:Articles with trivia sections	1510	0.58%
Cat:Wikipedia articles needing style editing	1420	0.55%
Cat:Articles lacking in-text citations	860	0.33%

Data from March 12 2008

5% lacking sources, 5% unsourced statements, 2% needing references (some overlap there to be sure)... that doesn't even track the articles that are coatracks or hatchet jobs. 5% isn't bad, you say??? except that is 13 THOUSAND articles that may well have problems.

There have been a fair few proposals to address this recently... semi-protection, BLP-Lock, (by SirFozzie, et al) Opt Out (by PrivateMusings, et al) AfD rejiggering (by Doc Glasgow) , dead tree standard, (by many folk) and some I've forgotten.

Some ideas are more radical than others of course... perhaps one of the more interesting offers related to this was Daniel Brandt wagering Hivemind. Probably nothing will come of it. (I made Hivemind myself recently, but that's probably the topic for another posting)

So what do you think? Has the tide turned and we are going to see change in this area at last? Or do you think there's no problem at all?

More on Anonymity

John Siegenthaler Sr. an early
victim of bad biographical data.
Image from Wikimedia CommonsRecall that I've spoken about anonymity before ... I've also talked about biographies and notability, twice before.

I made a rather loud statement of no longer being in favor of anonymity at the Biographies of Living Persons policy discussion page, as part of discussion on a proposal to limit editing on all such articles using semi protection. This was one of a number of ideas that have been advanced recently to try to deal with the perceived growing problem in this area.

Kim Bruning asked why I felt that a fundamental principle ("anyone can edit") should perhaps change to one in which only those willing to reveal their real name (verified as well as Amazon verifies real names, that is, not a perfect scheme, but not trivial to fake) would be allowed to edit at all. Clearly it goes against the early spirit. And I'm not happy about the idea, to be sure.

Simply put, the reason is that Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation have become too big. As the projects become more and more important, higher and higher ranked, more and more turned to, the stakes for accuracy are higher than ever before, with no end to this growth in significance in sight. The project participants, and the projects, have a greater responsibility than when this was a toy site.

Merely wishing to do no harm is insufficient. Merely saying that section 230 provides protection because the projects are "not publishers" is insufficient.

Sooner or later, someone with a biography that is seriously damaging (and make no mistake, with 250,000 odd biographies out there, there are sure to be some that are) will be mad enough and well off enough to sue. Don Murphy certainly threatens to. And moreover, with the recent success at securing large donations (a very good thing, make no mistake) the WMF is now a more attractive target.

So what's to be done? More than is being done, I say.

Just as with trademark law, where the holder must show reasonable care in defending against infringment, just as with trespass law, where the owner of a property hosting an "attractive nuisance" must show reasonable care in preventing entry, the projects must show reasonable care at preventing malicious editing of biographies. Tightening of the BLP policy, making OTRS more effective, hiring paid staff, whatever it takes.

But more importantly, the model of anonymous editing, or pseudonymous editing, means that the lawsuit cannot be laid off onto the individual editor that did the bad edit, despite statements that under GFDL the individual contributors are responsible. Server logs and IP addresses are insufficient ties of responsibility. Too easily evaded, too easily used for other things, so deliberately not retained indefinitely anyway.

So... it pains me to say it, but I think the only answer is real names. Real names allow the reasonable care defense, and allow transfer of liability. That has two positive effects, one that it protects the foundation, somewhat, but a bigger positive effect? It makes people actually take responsibility for what they write.

What do you think? Is the project too big for anonymity? Or is there another way out?

Ok, seriously... are you TRYING to make Wikidefender's work easier???

Let me get this straight...

Privatemusings has been having podcasts. He's had Danny Wool, he's had Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director, he's had Michael Snow, he's had Featured Article director Raul654. He solicits guests and whoever turns up, turns up. He's not afraid of controversial subjects and the casts (despite his tendency to go on a bit instead of letting his guests talk... hmm... who do I know like that!) have been well received, considered interesting and fun.

Number 6 features some folk not known for their high regard for Wikipedia as it stands.

The podcasts themselves are hosted on Commons.

So NonvocalScream decides that to put the page describing podcast number 6 up for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. Rationale? "banned users are not permitted to edit" as given here. The fact that the files themselves are hosted on commons, and that this is one of a series, seems lost on some... but aside from a few folk, this is almost a snowball keep. It's got the usual folk saying the usual things but it strikes me as a huge waste of time, sorry...

For those that don't get the title reference, Wikidefender runs a blog that many consider to be a bit of a pastiche of the stuff trotted out by those who think everything with Wikipedia is perfect, and may or may not have been the person behind this funny edit to my talk page. Not that he singled me out, NewYorkBrad got one too...

Is it just me or is this sort of nomination actually playing into the hands of those that say that some editors can't help but do silly things?

Losing my temper.

Well, this edit in the Daniel Brandt redirect deletion review was not my finest hour, It actually got me a No Personal Attacks warning from FT2... I stand behind what I said, and I said so... I think FT2 and I are square now. More or less anyway. I surprised myself at my vehemence. I hardly ever swear on Wikipedia.

Subsequently Daniel himself opined I'm a bad person. ... well, so's your old man.

I'd give you a link to our article on Daniel Brandt, but we don't have one. :)

Like I said, not my finest hour, I can't recall the last time I was warned like that.

So, over the top or justified? What do you think?

Notability and the BLP policy

Given the name of my blog, you'd think I'd have written about notability before this... The issue of how to judge notability has arisen at Wikipedia again, as it does from time to time.

This time, the person in question is Don Murphy, producer of Natural Born Killers and the Transformers movie, who had an article that survived 2 previous deletion discussions (1) (2), and who has been agitating all along that he wants his article gone, and using socks and an army of meatpuppets he raised at his site, to try to effect his will. Administrator Viridae, perhaps influenced by this discussion at Wikipedia Review, deleted it without any prior process and was promptly reverted, sparking charges of wheel warring. The article matter is now at Deletion Review.

As I said there, I'm conflicted. I am very sympathetic to the notion that Wikipedia should do no harm. For non notable individuals we should have no article, for individuals who are notable because of a single event we should mention them in the context of the event, if at all. Clearly, notable people (George W. Bush, Steven Spielberg, et al) need articles. But the borderline area is where it's hard.

Don Murphy contends that despite being a producer, he's not notable. Directors are usually more famous than producers, it seems, generally speaking, and he contends he's no more notable than any of the other 300 credited people in a film.

Others contend that yes, producers of big grossing films are indeed notable.

Me, I don't know. We need to solve the problem though, It's been suggested that if someone living doesn't already have an article in at least 2 other printed encylopedias they are either not notable, or at least marginally notable and thus can ask that their bio be deleted.

What do you think?

Don't blog... write!

Gee, I hope Robin Hobb is wrong. She makes the case that there is a fixed amount of writing within ones self to be had, and that if one has a blog, that means less actual writing. (1)

But I fear she is correct.

Writing is something I do for a living, in part... most IT consultants have to deliver documentation to a greater or lesser degree, and system architects like me tend to have to deliver quite a lot of it.

I've long noticed that I procrastinate on deliverables by writing articles... I procrastinate on writing the articles I mean to write (see "procrastination") by getting involved in various admin things, reading newsgroups and mailing lists, writing posts, writing stuff on talk pages, posting on AN/I, RFARs, chatting away on IRC, posting to Wikback, to Wikipedia Review, other people's blogs, etc. etc. etc! Namespace shift at its finest!

And now apparently I have yet another way to procrastinate, this blog. Well maybe I should at least try to be brief, and stop now, then...

Do you find one kind of writing saps your will to do another kind?

--------------
1 - Note, I found her writing via a post at the blog of Cydeweys, which was in turn a reference to a post at the blog of John Scalzi, one of my favorite currently active SF authors.

The WikBack

Wikipedia has harsh critics. Some of them are not welcome on Wikipedia itself for one reason or another.

Wikipedia ArbCom member Uninvited Company has set up a discussion forum called The WikBack, at his own expense, to provide another place to discuss areas for improvement. (for various reasons, some Wikipedia editors prefer not to participate at Wikipedia Review).

This discussion forum has been a mixed success so far. Some lively discussion has ensued, but there also have been those who say it is not as successful a vehicle for discussion as Wikipedia Review. Others may feel that the posting rules at WikBack may tend to inhibit discussion, pointing to, for example, bans of a week for off topic posting (after warning) as being inhibitory.

Is the existence of WikBack good or bad? Acknowledging that since it is Uninvited Company's forum (he pays the bills) and thus UC has the right to set the rules as he chooses, are they too strict? Too lax? What do you think?

(edit: I spelt the forum name wrong, consistently. Now it's been changed :) )

Mantanmoreland: So it has come to this?

The talk page for the Mantamoreland arbitration case proposed decision has reached 265K. (To be fair, a not inconsiderable amount of that text is from me, but I think FT2 and NewYork While this is not a record, it's a lot.

As I said there, we may be approaching a decision by exhaustion. The community and ArbCom appear to be at least in part at cross purposes. (That this case has high focus on Wikipedia Review probably does not help matters)

Given that as of this writing, no new arbitrators have voted in several days, it may be time to push arbcom to get to closure... any closure, if only so that the community can move on, and moreover, that the community can impose the remedies that ArbCom chose not to.

ArbCom is supposed to be the dispute resolution place of last resort but that seems to not always be the case, at least lately. The ArbCom acted to desysop ArchTransit, (full disclosure, I was the steward that did it) but that wasn't the end of the matter, the community subsequently banned ArchTransit. That is likely to be the case here as well. (and admins who think they can stand in the way of a community ban, like Canute¹ trying to stop the tide, might think again)

Is that a good thing? Or bad? Ultimately ArbCom serves at the pleasure of the community, and further, counts on the community itself (via the admins) to carry out the enforcement of remedies. If ArbCom gets in the habit of remanding things back, that's not bad as long as the problems spiral down to solution instead of spiraling outward and getting bigger.

Thoughts?
-------------------------

1 - Note that actually Canute was proving to his courtiers that something could NOT be done, by showing that the tide would come regardless of his wishes. This is a good reminder to admins who might think they are all powerful... they are not.

Wikipedia Review and my participation in same.

Given that I have a fair number of roles and responsibilities on WMF projects, (see my WikiMatrix ) I expect that posting at Wikipedia Review has raised some eyebrows among some. Heck, I know it has, some folks have written to me about it, and some folks have raised concerns with others which then came to my attention. There are other fairly "senior" people that post there, but I may be the only steward.

So I put together this explanation. I couldn't quite decide if it belongs on-wiki or not so I'm floating it here first. Maybe I'll rehash it there as a user subpage. Here goes.

---

I see it like this, as with anything, you have to analyze the benefits against the costs/risks... so what are the benefits?

• I think that it's good to have someone paying attention to what goes on there. You have to be a member in order to see certain things. I admit I started participating at WR with some trepidation, and I continue to do so with a great deal of caution (and a great deal of taking everything written there with a large grain of salt).
• I think WR, just like WP, is not monolithic. WP has a lot of good people at it and some that are not so good. At WR the proportion is rather different, rather the other way round, but there are some people there with things to say that I find worth listening to. A lot of chaff, and worse, but some wheat.
• Since WR is not monolithic, not a thing, per se, but a collection of people, it's probably not accurate to say I am "pro WR", it is more accurate to say that I've found a few things here and there to agree with, (mostly not, but a few) and a few people here and there who, when they say things worthy of note or reflection, that it may be of benefit to say that they did. Perhaps some of them can be brought back in from the cold. Or if not, perhaps at least it's of benefit not to demonise them. Demonization is a very bad trap to fall into and I see it happening at WP a lot. Certainly a LOT of people at WR demonize too so maybe leading by example may help counter that.
• I think it is important not to fall into the trap of "us vs. them" or of being blind to opportunities to gather information, even at places that have a lot of chaff (and worse...). I've been in various online communities for 25+ years now and my previous experiences with falling into the "us vs. them" trap (sometime I could talk more about if there was interest) suggest that it's not wise. The deeper plan, I guess, is to gather information there (about things that need fixing) that will make WP a better place, as I have already done more than once. And maybe to make the site's denizens in some tiny way more reasonable... not that I flatter myself that I have any great effect but I think I have a little.
• It's important to have some people that stay engaged with those that do not mean the project well, if they are large enough and organized enough to be troublesome and prominent enough to be noticed outside of their world. And WR is large enough.
  

Those are the benefits.

What are the risks?

Well there are the technical risks:

• That by posting there something might be discovered about me. But I'm already known by my real name, and I make no secret of my IPs really, so I don't see that as a big deal
• That by posting there (or following some link from there) my machine will become infected with something that would compromise confidentiality. That's a risk but I take measures against it.
  

(did I miss any? Tell me about it in feedback)

and the social risks:

• That I might inadvertently reveal something private or sensitive. I'm pretty careful about that, I don't discuss findings or cases or identities. It is a risk though but I really don't see it.
• That I might be extortable in some way (like NSLE was) to do things deliberately. I don't see it... that risk is minimal and really isn't heightened by being there.
• That by being there I give credibility to WR. That's a valid concern I suppose but not really a very major one. I think I'm very careful not to give approval to things not worthy of approving of... But the problem is, my not giving approval is not going to stop the tide from coming in. Wikipedia Review, whether anyone likes it or not, is becoming a source of information about Wikipedia. For editors, and more importantly, for the press. I think it's important to distinguish between engage and endorse. My engagement with the denizens of WR is not endorsement of their actions, not agreement with the things that some of them advocate, and does not grant them any more legitimacy than they had before.
• That by spending time there I am neglecting other places where I could spend time. True, perhaps, but we all spend time as we choose, so that's all I am going to say to that.
• That by being there over time I am going to become more sympathetic to what WR folk advocate. Finally we come to one I think has some merit... well, unfortunately, the more I learn about some things the more convinced I become that there are things within WMF that need correcting. WMF is not fatally flawed by any means (I believe strongly it's a great project with a great mission) but just circling the wagons won't work, it needs some fixing. The best way to fix it is from within, with knowledge of what the problems are, I think.
  

On that last point... I won't go into all the details but there are plenty of examples. Some of them are WR memes, some quite long running ones, to be sure. But that doesn't mean that there might not be some truth in them.

(did I miss any social risks? Tell me about it in feedback)

So those are the benefits as I see them and the risks/costs as well.

To the extent that my small efforts at correction and repositioning improve the accuracy of what a reader finds at Wikipedia Review I think my efforts are worthwhile.

I think my integrity is pretty much above reproach. I would never deliberately do something that I believed would cause harm to the project. But, I didn't sign a loyalty oath promising to back those currently in power no matter what. If I see issues I will raise them.

That was rather a long message, and a pretty serious one for a second post. Oh well. Tell me what you think.