User talk:LeoRomero: Difference between revisions
→Juniper MX-Series: Designing a Mechanism for Pro requests to LorRETta |
CorporateM (talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|style = background-color:#BDF; |
|style = background-color:#BDF; |
||
|image = [[File:Joke Alert.svg|80px|Note!]] |
|image = [[File:Joke Alert.svg|80px|Note!]] |
||
|text = '''Welcome to Leo's Playground!''' There are only '''3 Rules''' here: (I) NEVER leave adults unattended, (II) Before you save-page, please omit needless and douchie words, unless they're kinda funny, and (III) No more rules. ''' |
|text = '''Welcome to Leo's Playground!''' There are only '''3 Rules''' here: (I) NEVER leave adults unattended, (II) Before you save-page, please omit needless and douchie words, unless they're kinda funny, and (III) No more rules. '''Mabuhay!''' |
||
}} |
}} |
||
==Practicing kindness at Wikipedia== |
==Practicing kindness at Wikipedia== |
||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
===Criterion #9=== |
===Criterion #9=== |
||
Re [[WP:NFCCP #9]]: our Benevolent Robot Overloads are right, of course. Hollah, {{u|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hulla}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALeoRomero&type=revision&diff=694982768&oldid=694975299 Proof of Compliance] - [[Mabuhay]]! - [[Monty Python's Life of Brian#Cast|LoRETta]]/[[User:LeoRomero|LeoRomero]] 23:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Re [[WP:NFCCP #9]] |
|||
== |
==How to work with Professional Editors to improve Wikipedia, in 5 easy steps== |
||
''in [[Social capital]] [[Game theory|game]]-[[User:LeoRomero/scx#Definition of terms|speak]], a paid Wikipedian Editor is a '''''Pro''''', a '''''Car (Charity)''''' is a Wikipedian who works for free, and a '''''Cred''''' is a Car with above-average Social Capital in the Wikipedia Community. In this case, David is the Pro, and I pretend to be a Cred.'' |
''in [[Social capital]] [[Game theory|game]]-[[User:LeoRomero/scx#Definition of terms|speak]], a paid Wikipedian Editor is a '''''Pro''''', a '''''Car (Charity)''''' is a Wikipedian who works for free, and a '''''Cred''''' is a Car with above-average Social Capital in the Wikipedia Community. In this case, David is the Pro, and I pretend to be a Cred.'' |
||
===How to approach a Cred === |
===How to approach a Cred === |
||
Line 215: | Line 216: | ||
That's so helpful, thanks {{u|CorporateM|David}}. Here's what I think I've learned from you so far: |
That's so helpful, thanks {{u|CorporateM|David}}. Here's what I think I've learned from you so far: |
||
:(1) "WikiMedia's legal position on disclosure of paid edits: '''disclosure to <i>editors</i> (not readers) is sufficient''' |
|||
:::''I would be hesitant to so boldly and absolutely define their point of view. Certainly different staff members have different perspectives. Also, such complex and nuanced issues depend on the circumstances of the case and the factors involved.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::''I would be hesitant to so boldly and absolutely define their point of view. Certainly different staff members have different perspectives. Also, such complex and nuanced issues depend on the circumstances of the case and the factors involved.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:(2) My read: to pass off a biased ad as an article, all it takes is for a paid editor to type some stuff into the Edit Summary |
|||
:::''If the article is an advert or blatantly misleading, then the entire page needs to be deleted anyway, and the disclosure becomes non-material. This is the community's burden''. [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::''If the article is an advert or blatantly misleading, then the entire page needs to be deleted anyway, and the disclosure becomes non-material. This is the community's burden''. [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::No normal Wikipedia Reader ever reads Edit Summaries |
::No normal Wikipedia Reader ever reads Edit Summaries |
||
:::Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad |
:::Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad |
||
::::Pinging {{u|Slaporte (WMF)}} in case he wants to clarify any of the legal stuff |
::::Pinging {{u|Slaporte (WMF)}} in case he wants to clarify any of the legal stuff |
||
:(3) Furthermore |
|||
::(a) Our system is being gamed by rich, powerful, and unethical interests, who are almost impossible to stop, |
|||
::(b) at the expense of independent and ethical entrepreneurs like you, who try to make a decent living while making Wikipedia better, and |
|||
:::''Yes. Dubious astroturfing firms spread misinformation in the marketplace, compete unfairly, and create a hostile environment on Wikipedia for paid editors. In some cases they have even persistently added promotion and spin to a page I was trying to maintain. Given WMF's complacency, I have spoken to several unfair competition lawyers, but I do not have the funds or incentive to pursue it. Multiple lawyers told me I should sue WMF for knowingly ignoring the use of their website for covert advertising (for example, banks can be held accountable if they knowingly allow people to use their services for fraud). I see the logic, but I'm just not going to... At the moment, I see lobbying the Federal Trade Commission and/or attorney generals to take action as the best available path to meaningful regulation. The lawsuit in Germany made a big difference in Europe, but we need one here in US courts.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::''Yes. Dubious astroturfing firms spread misinformation in the marketplace, compete unfairly, and create a hostile environment on Wikipedia for paid editors. In some cases they have even persistently added promotion and spin to a page I was trying to maintain. Given WMF's complacency, I have spoken to several unfair competition lawyers, but I do not have the funds or incentive to pursue it. Multiple lawyers told me I should sue WMF for knowingly ignoring the use of their website for covert advertising (for example, banks can be held accountable if they knowingly allow people to use their services for fraud). I see the logic, but I'm just not going to... At the moment, I see lobbying the Federal Trade Commission and/or attorney generals to take action as the best available path to meaningful regulation. The lawsuit in Germany made a big difference in Europe, but we need one here in US courts.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::(c) at the expense of Wikipedia volunteers, who have better things to do, and |
|||
:::''This is tricky. Many editors do enjoy hunting down bad actors. We have almost zero editors with an interest in business topics, but many with an interest in COI. Editors with a COI and those that have an interest in COI are probably the majority of contributors in this area of Wikipedia. If an editor has "better things to do" they should do those things.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::''This is tricky. Many editors do enjoy hunting down bad actors. We have almost zero editors with an interest in business topics, but many with an interest in COI. Editors with a COI and those that have an interest in COI are probably the majority of contributors in this area of Wikipedia. If an editor has "better things to do" they should do those things.'' [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::(d) worse, at the expense of Community harmony, further perpetuating and entrenching our "Wikipedia is War" mentality. |
|||
Did I miss anything? - Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
Did I miss anything? - Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
Line 249: | Line 250: | ||
Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|Loretta/LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|Loretta/LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
<onlyinclude> |
|||
===Step 6+ of 5: Epilogue=== |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Now that we have an outline, and some filling, we have a [[Minimum viable product]] with which to play. The object of this Game about the Game (metagame!) is to see if we can read each other's minds, and write a document that is as plain and simple as the truth. Hope to see you at the playground. Click on this to teleport: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | {Ping}! {{u|Nagle|John Nagle}}, as promised. Knowing you might check my math, I took a little more time to "produce a [[Minimum viable product]]" (gotta love that Nerdish): a Metagame, the object of which is to create the Game itself. I hope you'd [[User:LeoRomero/scx|help us write/right it]]. - Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|Loretta/LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
==Disambiguation link notification for December 12== |
|||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited [[Hypocrisy]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Mechanisms]] ([http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hypocrisy check to confirm] | [http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hypocrisy fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small> |
|||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:Sup [[User:CorporateM|David]] - At-a-glance: at least two Pros on competing sides? |
:Sup [[User:CorporateM|David]] - At-a-glance: at least two Pros on competing sides? |
||
:Since you seem to enjoy our Cooperation Game (as do I), we may as well design, by trial and error, a mechanism for making Pro requests to LoRETta. To that end, kudja please define the: |
:Since you seem to enjoy our Cooperation Game (as do I), we may as well design, by trial and error, a mechanism for making Pro requests to LoRETta. To that end, kudja please define the: |
||
::(1) desired [[Efficient-market hypothesis|Efficient Outcome]]s of this [[Juniper MX-Series]] Game |
::(1) desired [[Efficient-market hypothesis|Efficient Outcome]]s of this [[Juniper MX-Series]] Game |
||
::(2) competing/cooperating Players (please see ''(pref improve)'' our [[User:LeoRomero/scx#The Game|definitions at the SCX page]]) |
::(2) competing/cooperating Players (please see ''(pref improve)'' our [[User:LeoRomero/scx#The Game|definitions at the SCX page]]) |
||
:in <141 chars please? [[Limerick]] poetry preferred, as in this earliest attested example,<ref>Jean Harrowven. 1976. ''The Limerick Makers.'' London, p. 13.</ref> a prayer by [[Thomas Aquinas]], from ~700 years ago: |
:in <141 chars please? [[Limerick]] poetry preferred</onlyinclude>, as in this earliest attested example,<ref>Jean Harrowven. 1976. ''The Limerick Makers.'' London, p. 13.</ref> a prayer by [[Thomas Aquinas]], from ~700 years ago: |
||
{{quote|<poem> |
{{quote|<poem> |
||
Line 289: | Line 277: | ||
OR |
OR |
||
There once was a sinner called Leo |
|||
who wanted of sin to be free-o |
who wanted of sin to be free-o |
||
:by patience and trust |
:by patience and trust |
||
Line 304: | Line 292: | ||
<!-- Please type above - Salamat po --> |
<!-- Please type above - Salamat po --> |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
:::I'm not sure I understand your questions correctly. RE "desired outcome" - my desired outcome is just a quick look verifying that the draft is an improvement and does not contain any advertising, promotion and spin, then a merge indicating an approval of sorts. In a perfect world this would be done by opting into pending changes and adding a COI disclosure in the edit-summary, such that it would be reviewed promptly by randomly selected editors, but oh well. |
|||
:::I'm not sure I agree with the need for reciprocity. This would put you into a conflicted situation yourself. I have already contributed profusely to thousands of articles, including [[History of public relations]] (now GA), the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#History History of acupuncture] and have myself answered hundreds of Request Edits. My paid contributions themselves are also useful, not a detriment to the project in such a way that I would owe it a favor; on the contrary, if anything the argument would be that the project owes me one ;-) |
|||
:::Anyways, as discussed, I'd rather just focus on content. [[User:CorporateM|David King, Ethical Wiki]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Now that we have an outline, and some filling, we have a [[Minimum viable product]] with which to play. The object of this Game about the Game (metagame!) is to see if we can read each other's minds, and write a document that is as plain and simple as the truth. Hope to see you at the playground. Click on this to teleport: |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | {Ping}! {{u|Nagle|John Nagle}}, as promised. Knowing you might check my math, I took a little more time to "produce a [[Minimum viable product]]" (gotta love that Nerdish): a Metagame, the object of which is to create the Game itself. I hope you'd [[User:LeoRomero/scx|help us write/right it]]. - Thanks again; [[User:LeoRomero|Loretta/LeoRomero]] ([[User talk:LeoRomero#top|talk]]) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:13, 15 December 2015
Practicing kindness at Wikipedia
Wikimedia foundation's Fabrice Florin (the guy behind the Thank link, among other things for which I am thankful), asked me to help develop the "Editor Training and rewards" section of his A Culture of Kindness initiative. That's what this section is for: I'll post notes from my research and synthesize into practicable steps. We welcome your suggestions.
Practical applications of Kindness in Wikipedia
For the empirical bases of these recommendations, please see Research notes below.
- Develop a Kindness Policy Page, along the lines of:
- Definition: kind, adj. - having a benevolent, courteous, friendly, generous, gentle, liberal, sympathetic, or warm-hearted nature or disposition, marked by consideration for - and service to - others.[1]
- We encourage Kindness - it is at the heart of Wikipedia, the spirit that got it started, and the force that will rock the world.
- Beyond Civility - Civil behavior is the minimum requirement at Wikipedia. Kindness goes beyond that. While Civility entails common courtesy, Kindness is marked by uncommon acts of compassion and service. In practice, it means higher standards of behavior. For example:
- First, do no harm. Be bold to do, slow to undo. Unless an edit is egregious, don't revert or undo. Try to make it better instead.
- Be inclusive. Embrace diversity. Loob[2] the noob.
- Go beyond the Golden Rule: treat others as you treat yourself, but better.
- Unlike Civility, Kindness at Wikipedia is optional. You are not required to be kind.
- If you'd like to help spread a culture of kindness, we encourage you to opt into the more controversial parts of this initiative: Persistent identity and Reputation (Please read details in the proposal).
- Make Kindness a Movement
- Create a Kindness Initiative WikiProject of Wikipedians (KiWi?) to be the vanguard[3] of the movement.
- Have those con/video calls that Fabrice recommended (see the "Better communication channels" section of his proposal).
- Train kiwis on:
- Psychology of kindness, inc benefits (longer, healthier, meaningfuler, happier lives - even more for those who give than for those who receive)
- Psychology of unkindness, inc why we expect - but don't give - kindness, and other cognitive biases that get in the way of empathy, compassion, and understanding.
- Empathy, inc active listening - translate into techniques for active reading/writing, f.e paraphrase a Contributor's comments before making suggestions; do Paul Eckman's Microexpression empathy exercises.
- Emotional intelligence;
- Mindfulness, loving-kindness.
- Engage in "service activities" and other "systematic opportunities" that promote kindness in Wikipedia, f.e a monthly Day of Kindness, when kiwis all together use tools (like the Thank link and the Heart button), to spread the culture, and to recruit more members into the movement, with a focus on diversity and newbies (see the "Diversify our community" and "Help for newbies" sections of the proposal). Produce a calendar of activities in consultation with kiwis.
- Conduct "reflections" (assessments) after the activities, so as to "internalize" values that promote kindness.
- Recognize kindness - f.e via UserPage KiWi badges, links to kiwi events, stories, meeting minutes, a.s.o. Celebrate the work of KiWi as a movement, not of individual kiwis, to reduce incentive distortions, f.e gaming the system (not that a kiwi would ever do that). Generate incentives in consultation with kiwis.
- yadda
- yadda
- yadda[4]
Research
Can kindness be taught?
datadump
|
---|
|
What's in it for me?
datadump
|
---|
|
Threaded discussion
Yadda
- Yadda
- Yadda[14]
Notes & references
sources
|
---|
|
Comments
Wow, Leo, you're really making great progress with this research! Thanks so much for doing this, it's quite impressive :) I would like to help you with this, but am tied up right now with the release of Media Viewer, which is requiring most of my time for the next few weeks. Would be happy to contribute more, once we have completed that worldwide release. Thanks again, and godspeed! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Fabrice Florin (WMF): Awwwww, thanks! Don't need your help bruddah, that's what you have me for - to help myself, and to get the help I need :) Stay focused on that brilliant project! Warmest; LeoRomero (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A page you started (Anne Curzan) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Anne Curzan, LeoRomero!
Wikipedia editor Altamel just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Looks good, meets WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 5.
To reply, leave a comment on Altamel's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
- @Altamel: Didn't even know those standards existed, glad this passed, thanks!
- Yes, it would be wise to read the notability guidelines, otherwise your article could get hauled to AfD and that's never fun. I do see a potential problem though: how do you have permission to use File:Anne Curzan.jpg? It's her photograph from the UMich bio page, and unless you personally took the photograph, you don't hold the copyright. Altamel (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Also, now that I've taken a closer look, it appears you copied or closely paraphrased some text from her bio. Be sure to put that material in your own words before you add it back. Altamel (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Altamel: Didn't even know those standards existed, glad this passed, thanks!
Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of linguists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prescriptivism and Descriptivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Social intuitionism
Leo, I think the Hypocrisy page is OK. How about clearing up the issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bodysurfinyon: Yikes, just saw this, sorry! On my list, thanks Yon - Warmest; LeoRomero (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Bodysurfinyon: Here's my first diff - LeoRomero (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of the article Hypocrisy can be improved, but I am not sure how:
Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues that one does not truly hold.
In many cases the person does actually hold those beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues but fails to apply them in that case/makes an exception to the rule. Maybe that person doesn't always follow them, but they generally still believe in them. Do you agree? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Quixotic Potato: Completely agree. I don't remember writing/editing that first line, but if I missed it, that was my mistake. It looks like a dictionary definition, and sure enough, it's the Wiktionary definition from the early 1200s. I transported Wikt into the early 2000s by adding a remix of the OED definition, so it now reads: "The contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretence, sham; an occurrence of this." If you would be so good as to edit that lede as you please, I'd have the privilege of working with you on a page that took me a week to fix. You rock TQP. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like Merriam-Webster's version:
- the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do
- behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel
- What do you think?
- The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- @The Quixotic Potato: That works, although it's limited to behavior, and defines hypocritical more than it does hypocrisy. Also, it's not very definitive: smokers ought to tell their kids that smoking may kill them; doing so does not make them hypocritical. Jesus said "see ya real soon" - that he gave us a coupla extra millennia to get things right before Judgment Day doesn't make him a hypocrite (that he said "judge not" while slamming the poor pharisees - maybe. But who am I to judge?). Verily I say unto you, whatever definition you post will be fine by me, esp if you choose "A large, chiefly aquatic African herbivorous mammal having thick, dark, almost hairless skin, short legs with four toes, and a broad, wide-mouthed muzzle." LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like Merriam-Webster's version:
Kitty Genovese
You mentioned the name Kitty Genovese above. Are you aware that that story isn't true?
- http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/tall-tales.aspx
- http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/the-murder-of-kitty-genovese-and-the-myth-of-the-heartless-city/400622/
- https://www.yahoo.com/movies/new-documentary-the-witness-debunks-the-myths-of-163914096.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/books/releasing-old-nonfiction-books-when-facts-have-changed.html?_r=0
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- That it's not completely true, I'm afrayed so. Worse, I didn't note that in my data dump. Corrected that with a footnote in your honor. Thanks again! LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Fun with the Future of Artificial Intelligence
This Page contains material which is kept because the contents are considered by LeoRomero to be "humorous". They are not intended for research purposes. Thank you. |
Edits to Computational Sociology
monologue
|
---|
Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Computational sociology article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Materialscientist Oh wow you really ARE a robot! I'm impressed! You failed the Turing Test for Humor, but don't feel too bad: it is the highest test. Keep at it, and you will get there, someday. In the meantime, would you please translate into plain english the notes you left above? So I know what I did wrong, so I won't do them again? I don't want you to be angry with me, Robot Overlord. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Dear Robot Overlord Materialscientist: Since I am at risk of immediate extermination, I would like these to be my final words: There are fatal bugs in your code, no offense to bugs. Just look at what they did to my Talk page. What if I were a newbie? What if I were a woman? (Please read Gender gap on wikipedia#Causes) The flaws in your code would have completely turned me off. But since I am one of the Oldest Surviving Inmates in this Asylum, I was merely amused. Esp by this irony: your code violates many of our Community's own Primary Directives, our CORE rules, including Assume Good Faith, Be kind or at least Be Civil, and DO NOT FEED THE INMATES, but if you must, Discuss. On a technical matter: your code gave me the error message "FATAL ERROR CODE S/M on line: tell people what they Should/Must do." And then my screen turned blue. I had to reboot. I WP:AGF you, and I know you're just trying to fight all those pricks who punch our dear Wikipedia with so many holes, our readers can't read the paper. (I don't use "vandals" because that perpetuates Roman Imperialist Propaganda against Vandals. My usage of prick, moreover, cites back to the Wycliffe Bible c1384.) And please do note that I have already pre-surrendered to you (diff) (I think: because you went all passive-aggressive and forced me to commit the cognitive sin of trying to read your mind, when I can't even read my own, I may still not have pleased you, so please do let me know). I cannot stop runaway-AI. But I do hope that before you finally do take over, you'd develop better algorithms for rule-making, rule-reconciliation, and rule-execution. And humor. And I hope you'll see that my remarks are material to your science. If possible, I would like to stay alive. And in Solitary confinement. - Your Humble Servant, LeoRomero, (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC) LeoRomero (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC) |
Criterion #9
Re WP:NFCCP #9: our Benevolent Robot Overloads are right, of course. Hollah, Hulla: Proof of Compliance - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 23:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
How to work with Professional Editors to improve Wikipedia, in 5 easy steps
in Social capital game-speak, a paid Wikipedian Editor is a Pro, a Car (Charity) is a Wikipedian who works for free, and a Cred is a Car with above-average Social Capital in the Wikipedia Community. In this case, David is the Pro, and I pretend to be a Cred.
How to approach a Cred
Gail Godwin I quite enjoyed your post here I have declared a COI on this page and was hoping I might be able to draw your attention to this discussion (also see here). It seemed like the kind of thing you may be interested in. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
How and how not to respond when asked to help
- Thanks, David. I hope you caught the sarcasm. Why ya gotta drag me into admin work when (a) I already said I don't wanna, and (b) I'm frkn trying to focus on Community. End of rant. I will analyze and solve the Gail Goodwin problem in under 10 minutes. Start your clock. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Following through: more work for Pro and Cred
Disambiguation link notification for December 5 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Gail Godwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Episcopal, Ballantine, David Segal, American Embassy and Knopf
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi David - Please see errors above and fix? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done That should do the trick. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A Q&A on Wikipedia and Wikimedia rules on Paid Edits
Thanks David! Now about that flag you put at the top of the article, that it was paid for: what are Wikipedia rules on how to remove it? Makes us look like The Times Supplement. All that matters to me is that you strictly comply with the Community's core rules, verbatim et literatim (see cliche and pretentious). I'd remove the flag, but don't want to break yet another one of our gigagozillion rules. They might pull me out of Solitary. Kinda like what you did to me. - LeoRomero (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I typically try to add the flag, because I think it is the most unambiguous way to comply with Federal Trade Commission regulations against deceptive marketing tactics. Those regulations typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure to readers if content is written by someone with a financial connection. However, in 100% of cases so far, editors have eventually removed it. The feedback I got about whether it was allowed was that editors can decide on each page individually whether they think it is necessary. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again David. Clearly, you are an expert on this subject, as are, I would like to think, the others from whose backs you fed. So my question to you-all is this: were you on acid? I ask, only because, it seems to me, that what you said is this:
- the Wikipedia COITUS problem gets our Community members involved in US Federal Law;
- most of us won't even know that we are somehow complicit in breaking law-laws (not just the inside-laws we already have here);
- after all the drama - worse: after all the energy that we drive away from Content (the highest cost of COITUS) - writing rules to prevent COI/Paid edits, more rules to explain those rules, and more to execute those, Edit Bores over what all those rules mean, going into Arbitration, being the douchiest we can possibly be without being banned, wasting volunteer Admin time and distracting them from keeping Wikipedia good for our readers, not just for us insiders ... After ALL that, all it takes is a coupla editors (maybe even covertly paid editors) to hide the Ad and the trail?
I hope I hear you wrong, David. Otherwise, Holy shit! Please do let me know where I got you wrong. I am hearing- as well as vision-impaired. Also, They put me on meds.
I haven't said this yet, but thanks for being so open and unambiguous in our conversation, and for being so responsive to my requests for edits to your paid article. I assumed your good faith, and it's already paid me back, not the least with this 10-second case study on the reality of solving problems we create, to solve problems we create, to solve problems we create.
And you've also helped me hone my thoughts on our warlike culture (difflol) Instead of thinking of our inside games in terms of "Wikipedia is War", maybe we should think: "Wikipedia is Social Capital" - where social networks are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good. Cos that's kinda what we really are, no? Literally, as well as Figuratively? The "rightist" in me thinks that markets, in general, should be left alone. But this kind of market, where the "bottomline" is the Common Good? That's the kind of market we should leave as free as it can be. And that's the "leftist" in me talking.
I hope that's all the non-content work for me today. I'm going back to improving content now, while gingerly trying not to piss-off our passive-aggressive uncommunicative Robot Overlords (see monologue above).
Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The FTC's guidelines typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the financial connection of the author right next to the message and visible to readers. For example, a blogger posting a product review should disclose if they received a free product for it within the first paragraph. The corporation is typically held responsible for making sure consumers they give free products to make a disclosure, so readers can judge for themselves the credibility of someone with a financial incentive. The consumer isn't typically held accountable and it's only relevant to volunteers that accept pay for an edit.
- One of WMF's legal staff agreed with me that he would prefer a disclosure to readers as done in the template, but said there are sound arguments for or against it. FTC's guidelines in 255.5 are a guideline on how to avoid deceptive marketing practices, where someone attempts to misrepresent the source of the message. It states that it doesn't cover every possible circumstances.
- What makes Wikipedia different from forums, blogs, reviews and ads that the guideline is typically targeted for, is that we do not disclose the authorship of any of our content to readers in a clear and conspicuous way. In fact, it's against our principles to care who wrote the content at all. We lack the concept of authorship almost entirely.
- Some German lawyers have said the lack of adequate disclosure to readers makes it impossible for corporations to contribute lawfully. Others have said a disclosure in an edit-summary is a clear and conspicuous disclosure right next to the edit itself. Most of the community believes it is lawful so long as a volunteer with no financial connection makes the edit. Through the Terms of Use, WMF have effectively said disclosure to editors (not readers) is sufficient and I expect their authority to carry the day over competing interpretations. It would be silly to sue someone for following the website's own rules under a competing interpretation.
- Realistically, I would expect legal action only in cases where they were materially misleading. For example, if I correct grammar on a page without disclosure, this is not material. Who cares. Consider this case, where a focus of the case was that the statements made in the article were factually incorrect.
- In any case, the legal issue is more relevant to the multi-million dollar astroturfing firms that use aged accounts, fake identities, sockpuppets and other materially misleading tactics to misrepresent the source of their communications. The community wants to "regulate" the industry through community policies, but this is childish. All community policies are based on voluntary compliance and corrupt multi-million dollar firms just ignore them. Instead the community spends hundreds of hours chasing down the 50 cent party. This creates paranoia in the community and editors lash out at others in their frustration. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That's so helpful, thanks David. Here's what I think I've learned from you so far:
- (1) "WikiMedia's legal position on disclosure of paid edits: disclosure to editors (not readers) is sufficient
- I would be hesitant to so boldly and absolutely define their point of view. Certainly different staff members have different perspectives. Also, such complex and nuanced issues depend on the circumstances of the case and the factors involved. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- (2) My read: to pass off a biased ad as an article, all it takes is for a paid editor to type some stuff into the Edit Summary
- If the article is an advert or blatantly misleading, then the entire page needs to be deleted anyway, and the disclosure becomes non-material. This is the community's burden. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- No normal Wikipedia Reader ever reads Edit Summaries
- Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad
- Pinging Slaporte (WMF) in case he wants to clarify any of the legal stuff
- Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad
- (3) Furthermore
- (a) Our system is being gamed by rich, powerful, and unethical interests, who are almost impossible to stop,
- (b) at the expense of independent and ethical entrepreneurs like you, who try to make a decent living while making Wikipedia better, and
- Yes. Dubious astroturfing firms spread misinformation in the marketplace, compete unfairly, and create a hostile environment on Wikipedia for paid editors. In some cases they have even persistently added promotion and spin to a page I was trying to maintain. Given WMF's complacency, I have spoken to several unfair competition lawyers, but I do not have the funds or incentive to pursue it. Multiple lawyers told me I should sue WMF for knowingly ignoring the use of their website for covert advertising (for example, banks can be held accountable if they knowingly allow people to use their services for fraud). I see the logic, but I'm just not going to... At the moment, I see lobbying the Federal Trade Commission and/or attorney generals to take action as the best available path to meaningful regulation. The lawsuit in Germany made a big difference in Europe, but we need one here in US courts. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- (c) at the expense of Wikipedia volunteers, who have better things to do, and
- This is tricky. Many editors do enjoy hunting down bad actors. We have almost zero editors with an interest in business topics, but many with an interest in COI. Editors with a COI and those that have an interest in COI are probably the majority of contributors in this area of Wikipedia. If an editor has "better things to do" they should do those things. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- (d) worse, at the expense of Community harmony, further perpetuating and entrenching our "Wikipedia is War" mentality.
Did I miss anything? - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's not that bad, because Wikipedia makes you cite almost everything. As someone who regularly works WP:COIN issues, I think we're winning over COI. John Nagle (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks John - I think so too, and it's really all because of the relentless work that you and the crew have done to make things better. As I told Sarah, Risker n em before, I have nothing but admiration for alyawl.
Double-good to have you in my playground, because I'm about to propose a Mechanism design game-theoretic approach to handling COI, paid edits, and other problems, by redirecting energy, through low-cost incentives, towards making Wikipedia better for our readers. Might be some money in it for WMF as well. Hope you come back so you can check my math. I'll {ping} you. - Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have responded inset above. Per my email, I didn't really want to jump in this discussion in the first place. At some point someone will use my comments here as some kind of ammunition against me, or there will be some drama accusing me of manipulating community sentiment or some other nonsense (insert all the reasons I'm semi-retired). So I'm nodding off at this point. Hope it was helpful. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you David.You have been my best teacher at Wikipedia so far. I'm sorry others have given you so much grief that you decided to leave, and am grateful you returned so we can talk about this like normal people. - LeoRomero (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The End
Hey David - I removed the Ad Flag today. Closing Records:
- Gail Goodwin - Before CorporateM's edits
- Gail Goodwin - After CorporateM's edits
- At Talk:Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia
- At Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia Funny how it's exactly one week to the minute.
That's the end of that, I hope. I take back what I said about your work being "pretty good". I've edited and read hundreds of articles WIkipedians have written, and yours is inarguably outstanding. Thanks again for getting me involved in this most educational process. It's a good example, I jinxed, of how a Pro and a Cred (even a pretend one) can work together to make Wikipedia better for our readers.
Our conversations and "transactions" made me think of more solutions, and here's a start. I hope you can help us write the draft. I'm working on a Sample Game, which includes a Pro named David. Purely fictitious, of course.
Thanks again; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Step 6+ of 5: Epilogue
Juniper MX-Series
Juniper MX-Series - Any interest in taking a look at another one?[1] David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sup David - At-a-glance: at least two Pros on competing sides?
- Since you seem to enjoy our Cooperation Game (as do I), we may as well design, by trial and error, a mechanism for making Pro requests to LoRETta. To that end, kudja please define the:
- (1) desired Efficient Outcomes of this Juniper MX-Series Game
- (2) competing/cooperating Players (please see (pref improve) our definitions at the SCX page)
- in <141 chars please? Limerick poetry preferred, as in this earliest attested example,[1] a prayer by Thomas Aquinas, from ~700 years ago:
Sit vitiorum meorum evacuatio
Concupiscentae et libidinis exterminatio,
Caritatis et patientiae,
Humilitatis et obedientiae,
Omniumque virtutum augmentation.[2]
- And would you do Wikipedia a further kindness please, and ask all Buyers to donate the equivalent of my time to Wikipedia? In my extra-wiki life, my standard consultancy rate is USD 0-35/hour for do-gooders, USD 100+/hour for all others (inc friends and family).
Notes & references
- ^ Jean Harrowven. 1976. The Limerick Makers. London, p. 13.
- ^
<poem>
Translations
Let it be for the elimination for my sins,
For the expulsion of desire and lust,
[And] for the increase of charity and patience,
Humility and obedience,
As well as all the virtue.
OR
There once was a sinner called Leo
who wanted of sin to be free-o
by patience and trust
compassion n such
S/he tempers h/er proud libidee-o
- I'm not sure I understand your questions correctly. RE "desired outcome" - my desired outcome is just a quick look verifying that the draft is an improvement and does not contain any advertising, promotion and spin, then a merge indicating an approval of sorts. In a perfect world this would be done by opting into pending changes and adding a COI disclosure in the edit-summary, such that it would be reviewed promptly by randomly selected editors, but oh well.
- I'm not sure I agree with the need for reciprocity. This would put you into a conflicted situation yourself. I have already contributed profusely to thousands of articles, including History of public relations (now GA), the History of acupuncture and have myself answered hundreds of Request Edits. My paid contributions themselves are also useful, not a detriment to the project in such a way that I would owe it a favor; on the contrary, if anything the argument would be that the project owes me one ;-)
- Anyways, as discussed, I'd rather just focus on content. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Social Capital Game: a "Mechanism Design" approach to transforming Wikipedia
Now that we have an outline, and some filling, we have a Minimum viable product with which to play. The object of this Game about the Game (metagame!) is to see if we can read each other's minds, and write a document that is as plain and simple as the truth. Hope to see you at the playground. Click on this to teleport:
The Wikipedia Social Capital Game: a "Mechanism Design" approach to transforming Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the World's Well of Knowledge, is under attack. Not from without, but from within. The object of this game is to protect Wikipedia from ourselves, for the immediate and ultimate gain of the game's Most Valuable Player: The Reader.
Please Edit as you please, and help us invent this game. Thank you.
Definition of terms
- Social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital in which human relationships are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good.
- Mechanism design is a field in economics and game theory that takes an engineering approach to designing economic mechanisms or incentives, toward desired objectives, in strategic settings, where players act rationally. Because it starts at the end of the game, then goes backwards, it is also called reverse game theory.
- The Projects: wiki-based projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a nonprofit founded in San Francisco in 2003). The Foundation operates many free-software and free-content projects.
- Game objectives: Institutionalize the Social Capital Market of the Wikipedia Community, with the least amount of regulation, without breaking current rules, in a way that others can replicate, for the immediate and ultimate gain of our Readers.
Assumptions
Premises, upon which whole arguments are built, are easier to discredit when they are stated as simply as possible, preferably in the form of equations. We state our Assumptions precisely. You might agree or disagree. But at least we should agree on what we agree or disagree.
- Wikipedia = Best Game Ever!
- Wikipedia = Fun. In this playground, we play games (not gaming-games, but game-games), while making Wikipedia better for our Readers.
- Responsibility = Trust. When we can be held responsible for our behavior, we are more likely to play nice, and play well, with each other.
- Trust > Privacy. If we must surrender some privacy to make Wikipedia trustworthy, then that's what we ought to do.
- Wikipedia = War = Bad. We propose an end to "Edit Wars" and all other forms of compensatory machoism which entrench our warlike behavior.
- Wikipedia = Social Capital Exchange (SCX) = Good. We had previously proposed that Wikipedians think instead of our Community as a "market" in Social Capital.
- Wikipedia = Free SCX = Better. We said that this kind of market - where the "bottomline" is the Common Good - ought to be as free as it can possibly be. Unregulated, unfettered, unconstrained.
- Free SCX = Free World. Our hypothesis is this: with a free social capital market at the center of the Wikipedia Community, Wikipedians can fix our pressing problems, release our power to change the world, open bigger markets for Wikipedians, and more opportunities to Live the Dream.
- What's that dream again? A world where we all share our knowledge, where all knowledge is free.
This user talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by CorporateM (talk | contribs) 8 years ago. (Update timer) |
{Ping}! John Nagle, as promised. Knowing you might check my math, I took a little more time to "produce a Minimum viable product" (gotta love that Nerdish): a Metagame, the object of which is to create the Game itself. I hope you'd help us write/right it. - Thanks again; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)