Jump to content

User talk:Sue Gardner: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archiving to November
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 323: Line 323:
::::::If you've ever tried to add any pejorative information, no matter how well sourced, to any article related to the US theme park industry, especially Disney or SeaWorld, as I have, you may notice that the information gets reverted by other editors immediately. What is the proper response? Investigate to try to find out if they're paid marketers for the industry, or use WP's dispute resolution system to try to influence those editors to edit more IAW NPOV? The way WP's current policies are written makes it clear...we (nosism!) are supposed to do the latter. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::If you've ever tried to add any pejorative information, no matter how well sourced, to any article related to the US theme park industry, especially Disney or SeaWorld, as I have, you may notice that the information gets reverted by other editors immediately. What is the proper response? Investigate to try to find out if they're paid marketers for the industry, or use WP's dispute resolution system to try to influence those editors to edit more IAW NPOV? The way WP's current policies are written makes it clear...we (nosism!) are supposed to do the latter. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::If, as happened with [[Wikiscanner]], we suddenly find out that those who keep removing the negative info from a company article turn out to be editing from an IP belonging to the company, then it's only logical to deal with that information. If the editors had previously made a big deal about denying any COI, then it's even harder to assume that they are acting in good faith. Would you have allowed the Bell Pottinger accounts to continue editing? &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::If, as happened with [[Wikiscanner]], we suddenly find out that those who keep removing the negative info from a company article turn out to be editing from an IP belonging to the company, then it's only logical to deal with that information. If the editors had previously made a big deal about denying any COI, then it's even harder to assume that they are acting in good faith. Would you have allowed the Bell Pottinger accounts to continue editing? &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I regret that Sue Gardner has not responded to my original inquiry. I've previously made other attempts to contact her on this issue, by email, etc. If there's a better place or method for contacting her, publicly or privately, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me. I just hope it doesn't require buying an airline ticket. :) &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 08:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2011 ==
== ''The Signpost'': 12 December 2011 ==

Revision as of 08:20, 19 December 2011

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Welcome!

Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Progressive Stack

I felt that the language you used to reflect the first source describing the general nature of the "progressive stack" was a tad euphemistic and ignored the more explicit description given in the source. I recently added some language to the end of the sentence to address this perceived problem. I wanted to give you notice and was curious as to whether you object to the change. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Centrify. No, I don't mind that change. It's not clear to me exactly how the progressive stack works -- when I was at OWS in NY, they said they were using progressive stack, but white men were speaking throughout the stack, and in general the order of speakers seemed to me pretty random. And, some articles describe the progressive stack in a more hedged way than what you wrote -- e.g., this article in the McGill Daily says women and people of colour "will be bumped to the top of the stack if the previous speakers have been predominantly white men, in order to ensure a plurality of voices is being heard." (Emphasis added by me.) So that's why I wrote it euphemistically, because I wasn't sure. But your edit is fine with me, because yes, the source supports it :-) Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, thank you for editing the article. I started it, so I am happy to see someone else working on it :-) Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I misspoke, bah. I started progressive stack, not Occupy Wall Street. Sue Gardner (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sue, great to see you expanding the 'Aims and Method' section which I started on the Occupy Movement article. Your improvements are very well judged and nicely reflect the reality of the situation on the ground on both sides of the pond. (I know several of the informal leaders at St Pauls and have camped there, I love the way youve captured their concern with making sure everyone has there say, including the marginalized. I would have put more about that myself, only you know what some are like about OR and I havent yet found many sources who do a good job painting a true picture of the occupy crowd. )

By chance Im trying to do something about that, hopeing to bring together some of the occupy players with some journalists I know and also some politicians from red tories / blue labour (which has some overlap with occupy movement, BL is big on participatory democracy though in different ways and has some similar aims.) Im told you were in London this weekend, and just in case you're still here and at a loose end, I have a space at the meeting which is kicking off at 7pm this evening in Kings House, a rather agreeable venue near Kings Cross. (We met at a meetup last year, btw). Email or message if youre interested. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, FeydHuxtable! -- that sounds really interesting. If it's just a meeting I wouldn't be able to make it: I've got a dinner tonight in north London. But if people will be there late I might be able to turn up, if my dinner doesn't go too long. E-mail me at sue at wikimedia dot org, and let me know. I might also be at the general assembly tomorrow evening at St. Paul's :-) Thanks. Sue Gardner (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Sue! Maybe you like to give out the "The Executive Director's Barnstar" to User:Redtigerxyz. He is an editor on enwiki since Dec 2006. Some of his key contribution are:

  1. Contributed to 3 FAs
  2. Nominated/Contributed to 80+ DYKs
  3. 37,028 edits to date ([1])
  4. Contributed to 40+ GAs
  5. Nominated/Contributed to 4 In the news articles

Hope that you will like the suggestion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk at Imperial College 13/11/11

Dear Ms Gardner,

On behalf of the Imperial College Wikipedia Society - thanks very much for yesterday's lecture "Women in Wikipedia", it was very well received by the attendees.

Personally I found the discussion just afterwards very interesting - many thanks for the barnstar. We have a research group on wikipedia currently doing medical education but perhaps we should be working more globally, if you have any further interest in that please do let me know.

Thanks again,

Tom (Mthe (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Tom -- I really enjoyed giving the talk, and I hope it was useful for people. If you want to point me towards something on your research group I'd be happy to take a look :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Finished 'pedia?

(apropos of the boardmeeting which I am watching)

  • PS: The only criteria I think that render an article impossible to be FA ultimately is meagreness of knowledge. I do think there is a way of navigating tricky and broad topics, but it is maddeningly time-consuming....
  • PPS: I agree quality and participation needn't be mutually exclusive.
  • Didn't figure what you meant by senior folks doing "scutwork" (not sure how to spell that...)

Anyway, I am lacking the time to listen to the whole boardmeeting stuff and it is late here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber. I'm glad to hear you were there: I kind of assumed nobody was watching ;-)
The scutwork comment was unbaked, and maybe not true. But I worked in newsrooms for a long time, and in newsrooms senior editors, after many years on the job, stop getting out of bed at 4AM to cover fires and car crashes, and instead get desk jobs where they vet other people's work. The young reporters take over the scutwork, because they've got lots of energy, and the more experienced folks mostly guide and mentor and help the newer people when they get stuck, because they've got the accrued wisdom to do that. The closest we have to that on Wikipedia is probably ArbCom, which is small and contains only a tiny fraction of experienced people. So my unbaked woolly observation was that on Wikipedia, if we had more new editors, the experienced people would get to relax a bit, while the young ones would do the bulk of the work. That was my observation. Like I say, it was unbaked. But the reason I said it is because part of the reason I think we want to work on being more welcoming to new editors, is because it would relieve the workload of the more experienced people.
I don't think the folks watching the live stream could see my slides. But one slide said this: "Editor decline means there aren't enough people to do all the work that needs to be done.
  • Existing editors risk stress, overwork and burn-out
  • Experienced editors can't take on leadership roles because they are bogged down in basic tasks
  • Bureaucrat, administrator and Arb Com-type positions get harder to fill
  • Vicious circle comes into play, with newbies increasingly being criticized, warned, and driven off
  • Systemic bias gets worse, and we don't benefit from the quality improvements (breadth & depth) that new people would bring
  • Older editors may naturally 'age out,' with no-one to ever replace them."
The slides will be posted within a day or two, probably here on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. Hopefully the WMUK folks can link to it from somewhere on their site too. Thanks for your comments here :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no I got all that. My own opinion is that doing scutwork is one of the great egalitarian things about wikipedia - I can go to WP:RFPP and knock over a few page protections here and there, review this or that or welcome a few new users. Need to think about the most problematic bit - the bit about editors-getting-established in their first period editing and then getting fed up with all the templates sounded very plausible and something that a targeted response might have some impact upon. I did wonder whether some naturalistic study of new editors who wound up editing in a sub-area, such as a wikiproject, with an extended circle of friendly editors did better at sticking around, and whether there was enough data to make something quantitative on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, our summer researchers did a bit of work on the impact of Wikiprojects on the editing community (here and here), but it's hard to tease out whether people who join Wikiprojects go on to become better 'pedians because they receive help and mentorship there, or if the kinds of people who naturally gravitate to projects are natural-born 'pedians already. That whole correlation/causation problem... :)
But FWIW, I totally agree with you that Wikipedians are the kinds of folks who tend to be attracted to and receive pleasure from tasks that most people would find really dull and repetitive – copyediting, categorizing, and disambig drives spring to mind – and this inclination cuts across editor class and seniority in the projects. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Maryana - yeah I sorta agree with you, there are quite a few folks who like that sorta stuff around.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I see FA as the pinnacle of what we do here - it is a portfolio of the work people can achieve when working together - showcasing collaborative editing at its best...and it has taken eight (8) years to get to where it has. Sort of a random thought/addendum to the above....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another situation I find fascinating is DYK - where there has been recent discussions over the quality of DYK, where we had a range of views from leaving it alone to getting rid of it and everything in between. We did (do) need to to a better job of vetting, but this can be tricky to enforce a sizeable behavioural change across a demographic of volunteers. Still, I do think there has been progress in the right direction, and a middle ground has been trodden.....but yeah, the balance between content and encouraging new editors yet trying to enforce or maintain standards is an interesting juggling act. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

There is no lack of newbie interest in WP

Seeing "editor decline" being discussed in an above thread, I think we should note that there seems to be no lack of of newbie interest in WP. From what I see at [2], my guess is that there is an average of 3000 to 5000 new registrants every day. We are just unable to draw-them-in, enough to become eds, even when they obviously want to. They are here looking to do things and have a lot of energy, and we are unable to direct it in the right direction. I think making welcoming automatic, providing a readymade personal sandbox with a mid sized article already in it (to experiment on) + providing a layman's short summary of the important policies and some general tips to avoid getting into problems + a clear statement of the goals of the project + providing a link to something which they could do easily e.g. cleanup on tagged articles (with some tips as to how to go about doing it without getting into problems and an advice to move to some other article if they still have problems), should be able to draw-them-in sufficiently. Basically, I think, letting them in further down into WP as soon as they register + showing them some things to do+ a mission statement, should work. Regards.-MW ℳ 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MangoWong. You're correct -- all the research we have suggests that new people do indeed continue to try to edit Wikipedia in large numbers. They continue to try, but what's happening is that they are rebuffed, and leave, more quickly than they used to. If you're interested, here is a presentation I gave to the UK Board last week, that collects together a lot of what we know about the barriers to entry for new editors, and the Wikimedia Foundation's initiatives designed to help fix the problem. Welcoming is indeed important: our research shows that today, good-faith new editors are much more likely to be warned and criticized, often by bot templates, relative to new editors pre-2006. So, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on initiatives such as redesigning warning templates and the new page triage process so that they are less deterring to new people. You --and anyone reading this-- can help in a number of ways, if you want to -- by helping with those projects, by joining the new editor response team helping individual new editors who are struggling or confused, by working to help simplify editorial policies and procedures, and by using Wikilove to help praise and thank new people. I don't have a link for our project about revamping warning templates, but I'm hoping that either Steven Walling or Maryana Pinchuk (who are working on that project) will see this comment and post the link. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template testing is at WP:UWTEST. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Steven :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comments about the Wikipedia gender gap, as played out on the Reference Desks

An editor asked, "This seems like a dumb question to ask, but what is the male:female (male-to-female) ratio on Wikipedia? I know it is unimportant, but I have a funny feeling there are more males than females here." I mentioned you in my response. An anon editor, not the OP, responded in turn with something I thought you might wish to read, namely (here):

Wow, that article reminded me how I found the Reference Desks, why I haven't signed in for years, and why I no longer contribute substantial text or reworkings to articles, like I used to. We did used to have attempts at social networking and friending, as well as spaces to chat generally about our experiences editing. All deleted in the move towards We Are Respectable. But it would take a lot to get past the great tiredness I feel at the thought of the conflict and fighting involved whenever I consider making a substantial edit, and I don't think I'm alone in that. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BrainyBabe -- I found that whole discussion really interesting. I'm glad people are talking about the gender gap. I noticed that Quinn1 said on the page that the Reference Desk probably isn't the best place to discuss the gap, which is likely true -- and I wonder therefore if there is, or should be, a central place for those discussions. The gender gap mailing list is one place, and there is also an IRC channel (#wikimedia-gendergap), but I wonder if we want/need a central place on-wiki in addition to those. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying that. I thought, "She is such a busy woman, I hardly want to disturb her; but on the other hand, I know the gender gap is an imbalance she is concerned about". So what to do? I have never used any WP/WM mailing lists, and only once or twice dabbled my toes in IRC. I consider myself a reasonably proficient editor, in assisting on the refdesks and making edits to mainspace, but I wouldn't say I know the best places to go to for the internal stuff (e.g. policy, advice, and shifting culture -- "the way things are done around here"). I am sure you could find other ideas from the editors who hang out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Would you like me to draw this thread to their attention? I get the impression that their collective bias, such as it is, is to redress the inherent biases of Wikipedia as it exists now. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias works on filling the content gaps created by the "inherent biases of Wikipedia as it exists now". So while that project doesn't directly focus on the editor gaps, people who read messages there might be interested. Cloveapple (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article on your Community talk in Hannover

Hi Sue,

I took the liberty to write a little comment on your visit to Hannover in the German version of the Signpost. For your benefit, I translated it into English at de:Wikipedia:Kurier/GE#Sue visits her German speaking dependency. It's not a 1:1 translation, as it leaves out some quips about German Wikipedians most English reader would not understand, but I reckon it beats Google translate.

Even though it is not intended to flatter you, I hope you (or anyone else reading it) would enjoy the read. Hope you had a nice flight back over the pond!

Best, Fossa?! 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then...

How about this:

  • For first two weeks in January. Prize is for best improvement to most core article. WP:VITAL is a good place to start for articles but a case can be made for any other very broad article. Current FAs are excluded (maybe exclude GAs as well?)
  • Four panel of judges - some ideas - Malleus Fatuorum (prose), SandyG ( vast experience at ascertaining articles at FAC, hence a v. good judge of article comprehensiveness), actually any of the FAC or FARC promoters, Ucucha and Sasata (who have an amazing eye for both comprehensiveness and layout). Judges look at diffs and rule on best/most useful progress on a core article in a 2 week period.
  • Some $100 vouchers for something or other (Amazon? Apple?) as prizes - say top 3.

There we go. This might engender some community wikilove....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I made a thousand edits to a nutty subject like Sheep because of a Core Contest, it's not a bad idea. I think the best method, however, would be for someone such as yourself Casliber to ask for a grant, either through a chapter (see here) or through the new participation grants program. If you want some help working this out, let me know. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Asaf who runs it, and it turns out I misunderstood, as "participation grants" are for travel reimbursements only. The first option is open though, as are microgrants from Wikimedia U.K. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahaaa, the microgrants looks about the right size to me - nice pointer....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, I saw this while I was here. I don't do "reward culture" or "paid editing", I don't think FAC folks in general respond to that (I could be wrong), I don't want to be part of a perceived solution to a problem I don't perceive, and there are reviewers who are much better than me anyway. Why not Colin (talk · contribs), Mike Christie (talk · contribs), Brianboulton (talk · contribs), Geometry guy (talk · contribs) in addition to Malleus-- just some examples of people who are not FAC delegates hence won't be perceived as having a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - yes those are good folks too. I was thinking of it more like a two week "flash mob" and take FAC/GAN out of the equation, and get judges to look over the article and quantify the improvement. I don't think having it months long is a good idea otherwise folks might get too serious. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(settles in nice comfy lounge chair on Sue's talk page for the moment)...okay then, first things, which gives us the most sensible coverage of core articles? Is it Wikipedia:The_Core_Contest/Articles ...or...Wikipedia:Vital articles, and of them do we restrict to level 3 and below or level 4....or do we just let people nominate and we judge each entry on its own merits? Okay, opinions please......Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Posting this above first as will then set up discussion based on which article group we end up covering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about neither? In what sense is volleyball a core article for instance, or house vital? And why is leprosy, a disfiguring disease that's reverberated throughout history and could be eliminated were there the will to do so, not considered vital when the common cold is? Malleus Fatuorum 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the contest, Cas. (I hope that does not hurt you in getting it across...serious.) Some of the good aspects are going after a lot of things (since this would be individual or I guess groups could split winnings). Including a lot of people. Feasible for the non-FA stud types (not a super prose polish exercise, only). High energy (tight timeline). I think also the omission of GA/FA takes a way a long time step and polishing emphasis...and would allow taking some of the stub/start/C articles to B. Which is really a huge addition. Like that IT article...grrr. Probably some decent fraction would go on to GA (even FA) by contestants who become in for a dime, in for a doller. (so some benefit after the contest.)TCO (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I would not get wrapped up in debating VAs. I've looked at the list a lot and as a whole, it is very, very solid. Kvetching about an individual inclusion or ommission is not wholistic, strategic thinking. We need to be less Wiki-ish and more like in the work world. 80-20. (and that list is more like 95-5). I added a slide to my deck in the VA section that kind of addresses this issue (comparison of 5 random VAs). -TCO

I've also looked at the list, and much of it is generic crap better suited for a dictionary. Malleus Fatuorum 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so Malleus (and TCO), you reckon each entry is judged on a combination of its heftiness and improvement on a case-by-case basis? We just give the brief as any hefty broad article and let punters editors come up with the ideas? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could run it off of pageviews. Set a floor (50,000 per month?) Would throw that out as a compromise. If we totally lose the aspect of prioritizing important topics, we lose anything that interests me though.TCO (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there ought to be a project where a rich flora of ideas like this are discussed. --Ettrig (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, everybody out of Sue's Place and head on over to.....

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Ping

My apologies for the delay in pinging you; I was trying to get out the door to ski, but have just had to cancel, so can now devote more time to discussion of a video of a UK presentation you made. Please see User talk:SandyGeorgia#Please please please and User talk:SandyGeorgia#Fools rush in; your clarification is welcome, as quite a few FA writers are de-motivated (not only by your comments, but also by other Signpost activity, so the two discussions are somewhat intertwined). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hello Sue, I seמt you an e-mail. Thanks Hanay (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sue, Did you received my e-mail? Hanay (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I did Hanay, thanks. I am doing a little internal checking around, with Frank etc. I'll probably write you back tomorrow. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful thanks. I wrote to Frank too before I saw your answer. I hope to see you both and tell you about the projects. I am very excited, it seems to go very well Hanay (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit slide

I saw part of your recent presentation - I'll watch more later, and respond further. But, I thought you might want to respond to this (on WT:RFA). I suspect you'll go "no, it's not like that" - but I also suspect you can explain it better than I could. Chzz  ►  21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chzz. (Nice to see you here!) I will take a look at that page later today. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad if you looked; pity you didn't add. Re. conference, I did say I would respond later; sorry that takes time. Best,  Chzz  ►  09:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your presentation/slides/parody

Just to be clear, in regard to this [3], I was NOT parodying your talk (which I actually think was quite good). I was parodying some responses to it which, as far as I understand, where going to be published in the Signpost, and which were... let's say "parody worthy". Volunteer Marek  00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks Volunteer Marek; I really appreciate you coming here to say that :-) Sue Gardner (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot authors: please hire them

Hi Sue, please consider hiring bot authors per [4]; "this is due to me not being able to pay for the server" in particular. As I am sure you know (because I learned it from one of your slides) Cluebot is the most important bot not just in terms of anti-vandalism, but also because new users are more likely to encounter it than any other bot. This would give you the unique opportunity to both solve Rich's financial problems which have caused vandalism levels to max out even though more people are working Huggle than ever before and would allow you to direct ClueBot's warning templates to be more friendly which would likely have a tremendously positive impact on editor retention. Thank you. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bot author should have to buy their own server. We're preparing to support bots in the new Wikimedia Labs environment; I'll get in touch with Rich to help get him set up there if he wants to be.--Eloquence* 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your UK talk

But I'm here to give you a heads up about this:

Going to press soonish, I believe. Alarbus (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Main street not Wall Street

Hi again Sue, the audit report mentioned in the Signpost says that the $12 million reserve fund is invested in Treasury securities and certificates of deposit. Someone on IRC mentioned that the Foundation's CDs are probably from banks. I'm sure you know that taxpayers pay the (currently very low) interest on Treasury securities, but did you know that taxpayers subsidize the interest on bank deposits too? You can get certificates of deposit from credit unions which are still fully protected by the same FDIC guarantee which protects your bank CDs. The added benefit is that their usually higher rate of interest comes directly from loans to people in communities to whom banks often refuse to lend, not because of risk, but because Treasury and Fed deposits allow them to access even more capital, such as the $7.7 trillon (with a 't') they borrowed at 0.01% interest from the Fed's discount window.[5] Please see http://moveyourmoneyproject.org for more information. Thank you. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since that site is geared more towards consumers, I should mention that this certificate of deposit rate finder currently lists three of the top paying five three-year, and the top two five-year, certificates of deposit for over $100,000 are at credit unions, and the rest are at small community banks. All are FDIC or NCUA insured for up to $250,000 per CD. It makes both dollars and sense to stop enriching Wall Street executives. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, CitiBank is currently offering 0.5% for a $250,000 3-year CD,[6] and Treasury securities currently pay much less, while the rate finder above shows that Melrose Credit Union offers a 1.91% APR certificate of deposit on the same term and amount. That's about $520,000 more from the credit union on $12 million principal over three years. Will you please ask the Board whether they want to take this opportunity? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA and Wales role

Sue,

Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?

TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. At least it is not some intrigue between you guys.
I hope you express those views, not shut the site down. I'm fine with us expressing our view, but to mess with content (even a shutdown is a form of using content as a weapon) will be violating NPOV. There was a faction, NOT happy with the it-Wiki for this reason.
And if you do decide to do it, some central community discussion, at least, not Jimbo's page would be better.TCO (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TCO: I'm sorry; I just noticed this comment. You probably already know this: the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't intend to take any on-wiki action. It's a community decision to make. We'll support whatever the community wants to do. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TCO. Also, Sue, Jimbo made reference to WMF using paid lobbyists. He specifically said that WMF does. Can you give us further information about this, such as the name of the lobbying firm or registered lobbyists? Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt. I think Jimmy has answered this question on his own talk page. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that given the heavy oppose trend this morning, and the fact that this poll has only run on the weekend so far, Jimbo would be most foolish to say to anyone, even in private, anything about the perceived views of Wikipedia editors. And, the process was deeply flawed by Jimbo holding it on his talk page and treating it like is talk page. Yes, Marek's comments were out of line. Some of them. But Jimbo hid the whole thread, and I doubt that encourages free and open debate. Yes, a majority so far have supported. At least half of the supports are conditional on the case being made there is a threat to Wikipedia. I will leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the assertion that SOPA "could cripple sites like Wikipedia", could you please give a justification for that based on the text of the bill? I see many people saying this, but I'm having some difficulty with the textual argument for Wikipedia. Something like "Wikipedia would fall under provision X, if definition Y was interpreted as Z ...". For comparison, when Larry Sanger made his charges about illegal sexual material, and without endorsing his view, I could readily see his argument and his reasoning from the text of the law he cited. The process of claiming SOPA is a threat to Wikipedia strikes me as almost a mirror image of that in terms of Wikipedia politics. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seth. Geoff Brigham's written a blog post which I think covers what you're asking for. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have some doubts about the Wikipedia-specific argument, but at least it's a start on something that can be examined. For example, I would be much more sympathetic to the assertion of "Blocking links runs against our culture ..." if not for the previous extensive proposals and efforts to block links deemed WP:BADSITES ("In order to try and ensure the safety and well-being of the Wikipedia community and its individual editors, attack sites should never be linked to or in any other way promoted."). Why that can be proposed to significant support for "attack sites", but suddenly becomes "such a tremendous task" for "foreign infringing sites", seems inconsistent to me. But I'll not burden your talk page overmuch. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If people were really concerned about this, and not just anxious to Occupy Wikipedia, they'd start going through all the copyvios at Commons and getting them deleted. That would at least be constructive. This whole thing's like pulling in the pitchfork and torches brigade and finding the mayor and two of the judges among the prisoners.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, could you point to where in WMF's 2012 budget is allocated funds for the paid lobbyists? If it's not in there, could you say how much WMF plans to budget for these lobbyists in 2012? Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cla68. You can see the 2011-12 plan on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, under I believe Financial Statements on the left nav. (It may also be housed on the front page; I can't remember.) There is an allocation in the plan for Legal. That amount includes all spending allocated for the legal defense and protection of the projects: assessing and/or mitigating the implications of SOPA would fall under that. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@everyone. I did a post that addressed some of these issues. Also we will be examining the new version of the bill (received today) and will post our analysis. Geoffbrigham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for the response, Ms Gardner. Some follow up questions...Why wasn't it previously announced that the WMF would be retaining a paid lobbyist? When did the WMF decide to politicize the English Wikipedia by getting involved in the campaign against SOPA? When did the WMF executive board elect Jimbo to lead this campaign on behalf of the WMF? If you could link to the meeting minutes in which the executive board made these decisions, I think it would resolve most of the remaining questions about where Jimbo is coming from with all of this. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clas68. Hiring a DC firm is a normal action that doesn't require any special approvals or announcements: it's reasonable that the Wikimedia Foundation would hire a firm in DC to assess the situation for us since, unlike other organizations such as Google, we don't have paid staff on the ground in DC. I'm not sure I follow your question about politicizing the English Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has a position on SOPA which we laid out in a blog post on November 16. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't intend to take any action on the English Wikipedia or any of the other projects: those are purely community decisions, and we will support whatever the community decides to do. WRT Jimmy, I will say this: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees opposes SOPA, as do I, and as does Jimmy. (And the EFF, Google, Craigslist, the Free Software Foundation, the American Libraries Association, the Association of College & Research Libraries, the ACLU, Creative Commons, Mozilla, and many others.) Jimmy's expressing his views in multiple arenas, including asking community members what they think about the idea of organized on-wiki opposition. Judging from his talkpage, I'd say that opening the topic was a good idea: there is lots of interest in it, and it's a good rich discussion. Sue Gardner (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. If the executive council didn't vote in a formal session to hire the lobbying firm, who was it that decided to do it? Does the WMF charter stipulate that proposed expenditures above a certain amount be approved by a full quorum of the board? If so, then the expenditure for the lobbying firm doesn't exceed that amount? If not, then how is oversight provided by the board over spending decisions? Also, do you feel that Jimbo can both be a leader in the English Wikipedia's community while at the same time functioning as a mouthpiece and executive board member for the WMF? Do you see the potential for any conflicts there? Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it amazing how much more fruitful discussion is whereasonable questions are answered in a calm and clear manner. Kudos to Sue, Geoff and Charles here. This is how concerned adults behave. (PS: Do you really expect an answer to those last two questions? Think of it from Sue's point of view for a second. She's already given you a "between the lines" response. Don't make the poor woman parrot the PR blurb.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.47.255 (talk • contribs)
For a little humor regarding issues of "Do you really expect an answer", myself, I tell people I don't believe in the "killer" press question. It's a poor CEO or Director or lawyer who can't parrot a PR blurb. But what one can do is to craft questions that put positions "on the record", and build evidence that way. This of course isn't easy - the world would be quite a different place if power abuse immediately shattered at the dedication to justice of the muckraking questioner. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to call me a "poor woman"; I am not distressed :-) The Board of Trustees approves the annual plan each year, which lays out the years's planned expenditures. You can see the annual plan on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. Re Jimmy, no, I don't see any serious conflict in his multiple roles. Don't you think that Jimmy being a respected community leader, and our founder, equips him to be a pretty terrific Board member and spokesperson? I do. I'm sure that yes, there is some potential for role confusion, but it's clear to me that the benefit outweighs any potential downside. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the full answers and quick response. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Greg Pak

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greg Pak. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to work on editor retention instead of admins?

Hi Sue, these questions were archived off of Jimmy's talk page twice before he replied. Would you please answer them? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, do you think administrator attrition is causing editor attrition or more the other way around, on balance? Are there any ways that the more quickly declining admin ranks could be caused by decreased editor retention? There are several reasons that fewer admins cause editor biting. Consider how fast WP:ANI is archived compared to about five years ago during the fastest growth period. Is there any reason to believe that admins make better decisions under one fifth the available amount of time? If it were entirely up to you, how would you prefer Foundation resources be allocated towards editor retention and admin retention, in terms of percentages of the entire budget? My opinion is 25% for admins and 1% for editors. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As neither admins or non-admin editors get any resources that I am aware of, dividing zero as you suggest should not be difficult. Personally, I think the barriers of entry are higher standards (thus, anyone cannot just edit it, at least for an article which is watched, without a significant risk of being reverted for good cause) and too much drama (the subsequent condescending note or block notice left on talk). I happen to agree that we are no longer just looking for bodies with fingers, and it is more important to concentrate on keeping experienced editors (who get bored or offended, and leave) and giving them resources to do their jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but in fact according to [7] the foundation has decided to devote considerable resources to editor retention, which seems foolish to me as it has leveled off to a slope sustainable for decades, while all the admins will be gone in less than seven years at the rate they've been leaving. I hope that Jimbo will be able to address the question. 67.6.191.142 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editor attrition is likely to be expected for a project involving documentation of knowledge. At the beginning all the easy stuff that just anyone can do is done. Ahem, Barbie, Easy bake oven, Kim Kardashian
Then it is followed by the harder work of citing and rewriting the more complex and technical articles for accuracy and completeness. That work is not as much "fun" so not as many people want to do it (or due to the costs of published scientific papers and industry standards, not many people CAN do it).. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha
In the end I think it'll be either the obsessed or the asbergers/autistics (or the in-field scientists/engineers -- which may or may not be classified separately from those already mentioned, heh) that really flesh out the niggly ultra-technical stuff.
So the slowdown seems entirely expected. It will likely never drop off completely, though it is possible for some articles to be eventually be "locked for completeness" at some point, just to reduce the vandalism hassle. DMahalko (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is broadly correct. By about 2007 Wikipedia already had articles on most things that most people care about. What is left is cleanup and QC, along with fleshing out more technical or esoteric topics. Those activities don't attract the masses. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and believe that supports the assertion that the Foundation should be focusing on administrator retention instead of general editor retention. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue asked Maryana or I to give you some more details about this. I think the first thing that needs to be said is that we don't see it as an "either-or" choice. Unless someone from the Foundation specifically says, "new editor retention" (or engagement, or recruitment, you get the idea) we do not mean that the only important thing to focus on is throwing new editors into the mix. When you suggest that the viability of the project and the health of the community are intimately tied to a strong group of admins, no one at the WMF disagrees with that. However, so far we've found that there are many variables possibly contributing to the flat-lining or decline in Wikipedia communities, and that looking at only one issue like administrator "bitey-ness" is too narrow. That's why we're doing things like facilitating WP:UWTEST, trying new feedback mechanisms and doing larger projects like writing a rich text editor (more engineering stuff here). As for how to address the admin issue... I think a large part of that lies in the community-created policies and process around adminship, and despite best efforts things like RFA are really thorny problems. I think there are plenty of longtime Wikipedians at the WMF who would be interested in helping new reform efforts in the area of adminship (personally I think Derrick Coetzee's proposal for 10 day trial use of the tools is great) but at this point we would rather in be a role supporting community change from within, rather than trying to impose it in the area of adminship. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding admin shortage - the key is measuring the backlog of admin tasks over an extended period to see if there is an increase over time.
Regarding "completeness" of wikipedia, yes alot of easy stuff is done, but it is only when one delves into content for an extended period that one realises how many huge gaps there still are, both in articles and chunks missing from articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the completeness theory commentary, I will just note that, "[As of 2009] ...there are more Wikipedia articles written about Antarctica than all but one of the 53 countries in Africa" [8]. This may have been balanced slightly in the last couple years, but I would not be surprised to see how bereft we are of information on some very basic topics still. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steven. Could you please address the question of causation including the independent variable of the length of time to archive on WP:ANI? In particular, running Granger causality in R on a low resolution version of the two time series very strongly suggests that admin attrition is causing the decline in the number of editors, and there is only a very small chance that general editor retention is independent of admin retention. I am convinced that including the time to archive from ANI would further strengthen those results considerably. Would you please ask Erik Zachte for his opinion on the matter? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a data scientist, but it sounds to me like measuring the level of conflict on ANI is rather a side issue compared to measuring say, what happens when someone's first edits are reverted or deleted. You could draw some kind of valuable correlation between a rise in administrative conflict and a decline in editor retention, but when you get down to brass tacks about causality, most new editors do not encounter an admin (and definitely not a noticeboard like ANI) in their first attempts at contributing. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that the amount of stress admins are under is affected by how much time they have to make decisions at ANI, and that in turn affects the amount of time they devote to vandalism patrolling, new articles, and speedy deletion. Do you agree it is more worthwhile to measure than speculate? Also, do you know whether the Foundation intends to survey admins? 67.6.163.68 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safeguards against "self-promotion, bias, and puffery"

Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner addressed the American Library Association in June 2011. Afterwards she took questions:

  • Asked by an audience member if Wikipedia had problems with people contributing self-serving material, Gardner said, “They are vigilant in their defense of editorial integrity,” so they are the look-out for self-promotion, bias, and puffery. There are lots of safeguards, she noted.[9]

Is Ms. Gardner aware that there is no prohibition on self-serving editing or even paid advocacy, and that anyone who blows the whistle on it may be banned under Wikipedia's strict outing policy? In my experience, the greatest threats to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable reference work are vandalism and conflict of interest editing. The community expends considerable efforts in cleaning up vandalism, yet it is forbidden from effectively dealing with conflicts of interest, no matter how great they may be. If Ms. Gardner thinks that there should be safeguards then I encourage her to investigate the actual state of affairs. The safeguards are not as extensive as she may believe.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the WMF promotes a model of anonymous contributors, the "outing" policy will always have to be stronger than the "COI" guideline. To make COI a bannable offense, outing would have to be allowed, or even encouraged. Which do you think the WMF is going to choose? Anyone who can't accept this probably needs to stop contributing to Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with paid advocacy may involve uncontroversial outing, as in the case of the Bell Pottinger accounts. But it can also be handled discretely. For example, Jimbo Wales banned an editor a few months ago for deceptively engaging in paid advocacy without resorting to any on-Wiki outing. However, aside from the outing issue, the ArbCom apparently feels that dishonest paid advocacy is not a problem. How about you, Cla68 - are you in favor of allowing paid advocates to edit while hiding their COI?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judge the edits, not the editor under WP's current system. If one starts getting personal with other editors this way, as in trying to find out who they are in real life, then one is taking this thing WAY too seriously. Those editors most likely to cross the line of trying to find COI to use against editors they don't approve of are often agenda-driven or activist editors, and Wikipedia would be better without them. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly we should judge editors by their edits. Editors who engage in advocacy, paid or otherwise, they should be discouraged, or if necessary, banned because they are fundamentally putting their own agendas ahead of Wikipedia's good. That's what COI means. But there is an important difference between misguided POV pushers who are acting in good faith, and paid advocates who knowingly hide their identity to avoid having their professional motives for editing revealed. In some cases, like the Bell Pottinger, their real life identities becomes known without special investigations.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've ever tried to add any pejorative information, no matter how well sourced, to any article related to the US theme park industry, especially Disney or SeaWorld, as I have, you may notice that the information gets reverted by other editors immediately. What is the proper response? Investigate to try to find out if they're paid marketers for the industry, or use WP's dispute resolution system to try to influence those editors to edit more IAW NPOV? The way WP's current policies are written makes it clear...we (nosism!) are supposed to do the latter. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If, as happened with Wikiscanner, we suddenly find out that those who keep removing the negative info from a company article turn out to be editing from an IP belonging to the company, then it's only logical to deal with that information. If the editors had previously made a big deal about denying any COI, then it's even harder to assume that they are acting in good faith. Would you have allowed the Bell Pottinger accounts to continue editing?   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that Sue Gardner has not responded to my original inquiry. I've previously made other attempts to contact her on this issue, by email, etc. If there's a better place or method for contacting her, publicly or privately, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me. I just hope it doesn't require buying an airline ticket. :)   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Talkback

Hello, Sue Gardner. You have new messages at Crazynas's talk page.
Message added 21:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Short answer... of course. Crazynas t 21:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.D. Barnstar - Wetman

Hi Sue,

I'd like to nominate User:Wetman - at Risker's suggestion - for the E.D. barnstar. Amazing example of a prolific content contributor who quietly keeps the whole place going. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=466656430"