Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/Special report



← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

  • Am I correct in assuming that Lianna Davis is a paid employee of the WMF? Her comments (defending an instigator of harassment against a 15-year-old volunteer) are very unprofessional. Schierbecker (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of Lianna's comments. I thought she made several reasonable points about the context. And it's also very unclear to me that @kibona intended to instigate harassment. The subsequent harassment is still unacceptable, of course. Chris Troutman's comments, below, also strike me as an overreaction. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very thankful Sdkb gave this subject a fair write up, at my suggestion. I am appalled by Mkibona's conduct; these violations of WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT call for a topic ban if not an outright block and removal from WEF's program. Because the harassment involved should have been prevented by WEF, LiAnna (WikiEd)'s failure to address this matter and her passive-aggressive "I'm sorry anyone was hurt" statement after the fact should result in her removal from WEF, as well. As I've read, this isn't the first time WEF's efforts created suboptimal results for en-wp which calls into question Helaine (Wiki Ed)'s leadership. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a paid employee of Wiki Education, not WMF. I fundamentally disagree that the instructor in this class instigated harassment. The tweet the instructor sent requesting support is quoted above: "I don’t know where the Black (& allies) nerds are, but I really need support in editing & saving" two articles. This was not instigating harassment. The AfD nominator somehow found this tweet and responded to it. Other users on Twitter — none connected to the course or Wiki Education — did harass the AfD nominator (and I'll repeat my comment that the initial wording of my post was a mistake, not an attempt to minimize or deny the unacceptable Twitter harassment — it was harassment, and I'm glad Barkeep49 pointed that out at the time so I could clarify). But her asking for help identifying additional sources for two articles is not instigating harassment. It's also worth noting that while one article she requested help with did get deleted, the other one she asked for help for in the thread (Ratchet feminism) got some additional sourcing and is now an article. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still unacceptable to canvass votes at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The disconnect between the thread you are replying to and the actual content of your comment is jarring. The exact content of the message says nothing about AfD votes. If anything, it is a call for editors to improve an article. And if an article is clearly being worked on and improved this is usually considered a reason to keep at AfD. Nothing untowards with that suggestion in itself. JMWt (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It's clearly canvassing if you tweet to followers asking them to "save" an article at AfD, because it is a biased message. An unbiased message would be asking for input on a particular discussion, without specifying if you support deleting or keeping. See WP:CANVASS. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sure, show me where the tweet specifically discusses a !vote at AfD rather than trying to improve a WP article. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get why I am "Administrator Barkeep49". The fact that I am an administrator is immaterial to this situation but this kind of labeling suggests it is. If you're going to name a PERM that matters in this context it would be "New Page Reviewer Barkeep49". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three points from BHG:
  1. It seems that those running this course did not give (or did not succeed in conveying) to the students a proper grounding in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Those policies are absolutely fundamental to writing any article on en.wp, yet the students who have commented seems to be woefully lacking in that understanding; one even suggested dding refs to press releases as evidence of notability. I count that as grave failing by the course director, and more broadly by WikiEd.
  2. A lot of the commentary refers to "harassment" by and of various parties, but none of the posts cited show any evidence of harassment. There are many critical responses, and some of those are heated or harsh ... but the harassment is normally used to describe a pattern of hostile behaviour, rather than just individual acts of hostility. This misuse of the word poisons our ability to discuss contentious issues.
  3. It seems to me to be very unlikely that a 15yo is suitably experienced to be able to assess the significance and availability of sources related to a politically-contentious topic which is not well-covered in mainstream media. I intend no criticism of the individual concerned, who I assume is diligent and well-intentioned ... but the ideal choice of person to assess such matters would be someone with a lot more experience. That is a structural problem arising from wp's fundamental policies relating to editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 3.: Looking at the AfD discussion, it appears that five other editors agreed with the nominator's concerns about the sources cited, and two of them reported having made unsuccessful efforts to find suitable sources themselves. Do you think all five lacked competence as well?
And are there concrete examples of sources that were overlooked or misjudged in this case (in particular due to the alleged incompetence issue)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: I am not here to re-run the AFD debate or to find sources.
I remain concerned at the lack of expertise and experience. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that those running this course did not give (or did not succeed in conveying) to the students a proper grounding in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Sometimes there's a gap between what's written and what people take away from what's written, but we do communicate these concepts to thousands of students each term. We could say more in our trainings, but longer, more detailed instructions don't equal better retention (cf the existence of "tldr").
Those policies are absolutely fundamental to writing any article on en.wp, yet the students who have commented seems to be woefully lacking in that understanding; one even suggested dding refs to press releases as evidence of notability. I count that as grave failing by the course director, and more broadly by WikiEd. Yes, something didn't connect here. In a conversation with Mkibona after the blow-up, she mentioned that the students why they didn't use the sources she supplied in class, for some reason. Sometimes people don't get it. But there were almost 6,000 students last term, who worked on over 6,000 articles. The vast majority did much, much better than the average brand new editor - because of the training and support we provide.
I remain concerned at the lack of expertise and experience I suspect there aren't more than 100 people who have more expertise with article creation or policy than I do. And after supporting tens of thousands of new editors over the last 7+ years, I don't believe there's anyone who has more experience working with new editors. I did my best working with the students who wrote the BWR article, I exchanged many messages with them trying to help them understand the issues of V, N and RS. That I failed goes without saying. But it wasn't for lack of either experience or expertise. Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guettarda: it seems to me that WikiEd has three functions here.
The first is to teach the policies. I accept your good faith assurances that WikiEd worked hard to teach that.
The second function of WikiEd should be to test students learning of key policies, and make a pass compulsory before letting them loose to add content to the 'pedia. Is there a structure for doing such tests before students start editing?
The third function of WikiEd should be to provide a structure for reviewing the quality of students' work before it is moved out of draft space or userspace, so that a) it isn't left to volunteer editors to clean up after WikiEd, and b) the students get guidance on how to resolve any problems. Does WikiEd have any process or structure for such reviews? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the idea that we should test new editors any more than we should bite them. I understand all the reasons why Wiki Ed students aren't the same as the random new editor but this cuts both ways. The typical Wiki Ed student has some qualities that are better than the average new editor and some qualities that make them more challenging. We shouldn't be testing new editors and bottomline Wiki Ed students are a kind of new editor so they should not be tested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the idea that new editors have to pass some test before they're allowed to edit is antithetical to the model of Wikipedia. And honestly, the only way to implement what you're asking would be to partially block - and then unblock - 6,000 accounts each term. Some of whom are experienced editors, either because they were Wikipedians before they signed up for a class that involved Wikipedia editing, or because they are taking their second or third class that includes a Wikipedia assignment.
Our current model scaffolds the assignment. They do trainings - some before they start drafting their work, some while they're doing it. They are taken through the process of evaluating an article, which is supposed to help them understand what makes a good article, and what some common problems are. They assign themselves an article to work on. They're supposed to construct a bibliography as an exercise to make them look at source quality. They draft their work in their sandboxes. They peer review each other's work using instructions about what an article should look like and a set of leading questions. A lot of instructors review their students' work before they move things to mainspace. The system isn't perfect, but working with these systems has made me a better editor, even after all this time. And to be clear - the vast majority of students aren't working on new articles, they're improving existing articles.
While it's impossible to monitor everything students do, we do monitor a lot of it. There are something like 20 different categories of notifications that the Dashboard send out regarding what students do. We're currently working on a system to use Headbomb's source quality script to monitor the kinds of sources students are adding to their drafts. (I wish there was a way to switch that on automatically for all new editors.) IIRC, something close to 20% of new editors in the active parts of the year come through Wiki Education. Each term several students take their work through GAN successfully. Lots more of the articles they expand are taken through GAN by established editors. As a volunteer I see lots of student work pop up on my Watchlist, but unlike a lot of contributions by new editors, most of the time it's not the stuff that needs to fix immediately. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl very unlikely that a 15yo is suitably experienced to be able to assess the significance and availability of sources related to a politically-contentious topic which is not well-covered in mainstream media: I do not really see the concern here? If the nominator's assessment is wrong, the AfD process would typically result in the article being kept. Also, even in the case where there are sources out there somewhere that would show notability but they are not found during the AfD and the article ends up deleted... later, any editor who knows of or finds those sources can recreate the article, and the article they create would likely be better for using those sources than the deleted one was. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @PJvanMill: I am touched by your faith in the collective wisdom of AFD, but I don't share it.
      Everyone at AFD missed the central fact: that the topic had been approved by an academic scholar specialising in this area. That should have led to attempts to engage in dialogue about the types of source which Wikipedia requires. But instead of reaching out, most of the AFD participants just robotically applied the rules. Even worse, when Mkibona posted on Twitter asking for help to improve the article (no mention of AFD), they were falsely accused of canvassing.
      So in this case I regard the AFD as at best a failure. At worst it raises unpleasant questions about the dismissal of some African American scholars who wanted to bring their skills to Wikipedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @BrownHairedGirl There is no reason to believe that an academic specializing in the area has a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have seen at least one course instructor explicitly approve an article as having enough sources to count for notability when it clearly, clearly did not. (Sorry, don't remember enough about this to find a diff; it was not the Chicana art class that ended up with so many articles going straight to AfD, but other than that all I remember was my horror.) In my despair I went looking for, and found, WikiEdu course materials. They are utterly insufficient on this topic, to a degree I consider unethical. I say this as an editor and a teacher. There are always going to be some student-created articles that are deleted; you can lead an undergraduate to sources but you cannot make them read. But the obvious, profound failure of some course instructors to understand even the basic idea of notability is a clear indictment of WikiEdu. Instructors are busy. Wikipedia policies can be arcane. But the basics? They're not that difficult. It can be so, so much better than this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not about the specifics of what happened in this case, but about the context in which it occurs. There is a desire to increase coverage of under-represented topic areas and to increase involvement of editors from under-represented demographics. However, combining the two isn't the ideal solution. Getting new editors to write new articles runs the risk of these articles having problems with notability and other policy violations and ending up at AfD or other unpleasantness. And, if the group of new editors from under-represented demographics is being asked to write about topics relating to their own demographic, then there is also scope for conflict of interest and WP:GREATWRONGS. I say this from the perspective of someone who has been involved in supporting edit-a-thons of this nature. While there is a lot of good intention from all involved, it creates a high-risk situation (as the story reported above illustrates). Put simply, inexperienced contributors and new articles is not a good combination. I think we need to de-couple the two goals. Initiatives to increase content on under-represented topics should involve more experienced contributors and initiatives for engaging new contributors from under-represented demographics should focus on improving existing articles on uncontentious topics in the first instance. More generally, I think we should be lifting the bar on the creation of new articles, which is currently 10 edits or 4 days since sign-up. While this threshold may be OK to predict intent to vandalise, I don't think it's sufficient experience for new article creation. Maybe 100 edits *and* a month since sign-up for entry into Article for Creation, maybe 1000 edits *and* 3 months since sign-up for article creation straight into mainspace. In that way, contributors will have more experience when they tackle their first article and we will reduce conflict-of-interest article creation. As a side benefit, it will make it harder for the undisclosed paid editors, who currently create a new account, do 10 quick edits to random articles and then create the article (and then presumably repeat the pattern with a new account). Kerry (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a desire to increase coverage of under-represented topic areas and to increase involvement of editors from under-represented demographics. However, combining the two isn't the ideal solution. - But there's a reason these two are connected, and combining the two is unavoidable without telling people "please stop writing about the things that are relevant to you -- let people of other demographics write about them instead". Dealing with systemic bias, both on and off-wiki, can be high-risk (at least in the sense of the weight of context), and just the fact of being underrepresented (subjects or people) makes them a bit trickier and weightier in some ways. If we actually want to bring more people to Wikipedia and cover more topics, we have to be ready to face some of that risk and potential challenges. I do want to be clear, though, that my response, at least, is a bit of an abstract tangent in that I'm not saying any Wikipedian should have to deal with the kinds of Tweets mentioned above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thinking about systemic bias is good. Thinking hard about systemic bias is good. Thinking about systemic and systematic bias as they impact Wikipedia as a supply chain issue is good. Thinking about the whole upstream and downstream supply chain issue for reliable sources around Wikipedia, without blame games, is even better. Then, perhaps, what goes on at AfD can be parsed in a way that makes more sense. Where is this explained? Charles Matthews (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This seems like something I could put in the next edition's deletion report (which is a fairly new feature, and the non-statistical part of this month's report was mostly about the NSPORTS proposal. If you've got any topic suggestions, I'd be interested in hearing them. jp×g 07:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I may misunderstand your intent here, but stating "let's all think hard about systemic bias, but let's not play blame games" is precisely how you get nods and a round of "quite right"s from members of the majority while eliciting some frustrated tweets from people who are actually affected by that systemic bias by virtue of their very existence. :P — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point, made a while back on Twitter, is that Wikipedia, the tertiary source, can get the blame for an absence of enough secondary sources; while the actual effect of that deficit is that Wikipedia coverage then suffers. Shooting the messenger combined with victim blaming. That is why you need the supply chain metaphor. My intent is that it should not be elided. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • This page out of what is an interesting article by an academic (area New Hampshire Native American writers) shows that academics can get some of what is at issue here. The whole article is worth reading, in exactly the context of this Signpost report. I remember when I came across it thinking "but, but ... if these writers are significant, where are the academic secondary sources?" If it is only by setting writing assignments for students that academics realise the absence of the independent, third-party sources Wikipedia wants, what does that tell us? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1,000 edits seems unbelievably steep. The first article I wrote (1-pentadecanol) came after way less than that, and it's very unlikely I would have stuck around if the threshold were that high (remember that jumping in to make a bunch of gnome edits is much harder for newcomers). jp×g 01:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kerry Raymond writes increase coverage of under-represented topic areas and to increase involvement of editors from under-represented demographics. However, combining the two isn't the ideal solution.
    Au contraire, WP:WikiProject Women in Red has combined the two with great success. It just needs to be run a lot better than this WikiEd course was. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if it wasn't for an edit conflict, I would have gone on to make the point that such programs needs better risk management. Saying "we have to be ready to face some of that risk" begs the question of who "we" are. It is not just the people who design these programs who are choosing to accept the risk. On the contrary, they create risks for others who did not agree to those risks. A new contributor who has a bad experience probably didn't accept that risk (or didn't understand the risk they faced). The community members who responded to the problematic contribution have had their time wasted and, in some cases, will be accused of having taken their action because they are "anti" whatever the topic area is. They didn't agree to this risk. If the new contributor does not continue, then the movement has lost someone who might have continued if their early experience was more positive. The reader is impacted as they may see the problematic edits and misunderstand something because of them and they are also impacted by the loss of contributors as it leads to less content in the encyclopedia in the long run. Any analysis of risk must consider ALL of the stakeholders. I have been running Wikipedia training sessions here in Australia since 2013 and I have evolved them to reduce these risks, so I say these things from practical experience. Kerry (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]