User:Ocaasi/Seren

''The goal of these questions is to tell a story, your story. Please feel free to share instinctual answers as well as considered commentary, any tensions you feel about issues, or neat anecdotes that will help another editor see through your eyes.''

What was your inspiration for starting WikiProject Cooperation?
My creation of WikiProject Cooperation came about after the proposal by Herostratus of WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I was (and am) personally opposed to the idea of automatic blocking of paid editors and other methods of locking out companies from being a part of Wikipedia. I feel that this would only lead to more controversy and, as a whole, a worse encyclopedia. So I thought up WikiProject Cooperation as an alternative that would instead work together with such users for both their benefit and the benefit of Wikipedia from their knowledge.

How does WikiProject Cooperation deal with conflicts of interest?
WikiProject Cooperation has a specific process called Paid Editor Help that has those users in a conflict of interest related to paid editing list what additions they wish to be made to an article, with reliable sources linked if it's a content addition. This also includes the proposal of new articles. Then, one or two (or more) members of the WikiProject go through the request, checking it for neutrality, and then enact it if they feel it is proper and within policy to do so.

We've already had more than twenty requests and a fair amount of proposed new articles from a variety of different people and organizations. For the most part, other than some necessary changes, the requests have all been for things that are within policy and on notable topics.

====There's a long list of scandals dating back to MyWikiBiz up through WikiScanner and BellPottinger, in which COI editors have been exposed, blocked, or embarrassed. Do you see that trend improving or getting worse? Are we facing more of those controversies, or are we just more informed about them?====

In total, I would say the trend is rather constant. Sure, the amount has increased, but that is probably a combination of Wikipedia's growth over the years and the increasing focus in the media world on such incidents. I think the frequency of such incidents has stayed pretty relative to Wikipedia's own growth. Of course, I also don't see such scandals going away any time soon. There're always going to be those that try to get in the easy way or don't want to bother with doing something ethically. We can pre-emptively dissuade some of this activity by working more directly with corporations and giving them more clear avenues of access so they can request and discuss the changes they would like, but there will still always be the few bad apples. And we'll just have to live with them and remain vigilant in our protection of the encyclopedia.

Jimmy Wales has taken strong stance against direct editing of articles by COI editors. Do you think editors should ever edit articles directly if they are paid for their work?
I fully understand Jimbo's stance, considering his (and Wikipedia's) past interactions with paid editors, from the now widely known Bell Pottinger scandal to a number of other incidents in the past listed in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. However, as can be seen from WikiProject Cooperation's success and from the groups that want to work with Wikipedia, like the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement, there are a vast number of paid editors who want to work properly with Wikipedia to improve its coverage of corporation related topics and to fix inaccuracies.

The question on whether such editors should be directly editing isn't as clear cut as that. To splice it into two parts, I do not believe paid editors or those editors with a strong COI like them should be making major content additions or content changes to articles. However, I believe grammatical changes, the addition of references and images, and updates to financial information are all proper activities for paid editors to do in articlespace, as outlined in the COI guideline.

What do you think of recent efforts to improve relations between the PR industry/paid editors, and Wikipedia? I'm thinking of CREWE and WikiProject Cooperation in particular.
I'm glad that, in terms of CREWE, PR people have finally stepped forward in order to try and work out ways to be collaborative with Wikipedia, rather than antagonistic as in the past. I truly think that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to work together with others. And it's a two-way street. We have to work toward helping others, such as paid editors, but they also have to put in the effort to work with us, by following the system we've set up here for building an encyclopedia. Our job is just to make that system as simple and open as possible, a goal that the Wikimedia Foundation has had since day one. WikiProject Cooperation is one such step toward having more options and openness for the PR community.

How can the constructive paid editors be accommodated while still dealing with the unethical ones?
How we've already been going about it in WikiProject Cooperation is one of the better methods, I think. We need to provide methods for paid editors to request changes to articles, methods that are more personal and work swifter than just a Request Edit tag, which can sometimes sit for weeks. The unethical ones are, by nature, not going to use the proper methods of editing on Wikipedia, so our actions of watching, tagging, running SPIs, and all the rest have already been shown to be fairly effective. More of the same and increasing vigilance is the best method to deal with the unethical editors.

What has surprised you about working with COI or paid editors? What is the most common misunderstanding they hold about Wikipedia?
The misunderstandings tend to fall on one of two polarized viewpoints. The first belief is that they are never allowed to touch any article ever, which is clearly not true, per our own COI guideline. And believe me, none of us want to be bogged down with Request Edit tags for some sort of minor correction.

The other extreme is the belief that, since they are trying to improve the article, it's okay that they just go ahead and jump right in and start doing stuff. While I can completely understand this viewpoint, as we allow COIs of various degrees to edit articles in the first place without anyone saying it's wrong (which inevitably leads to some sort of ARBCOM sanction for the entire topic area). For the most part, what they are trying to add is perfectly fine. The issues come in with the fact that such users are often new users and don't know how to use the interface properly, nor do they know how to write in the language we generally couch our articles in.

What has surprised me the most is probably just how vast the number of paid editors are that want to edit Wikipedia properly and by following our rules, but the rules are either not clearly defined or they don't know how to edit properly. Paid editing is definitely an area that we can get a lot of worthwhile content out of, but it's also an area where we run across common problems, problems that things like the WYSIWYG editor (What You See Is What You Get) will hopefully fix, and misunderstandings on how to properly go about editing within Wikipedia's rules. If we can make things more simple and straightforward, along with providing methods of assisting such editors, we'll all benefit in the end.

====What do you think is a bigger problem, paid editing, or upaid advocacy? Do you think it's unfair that paid editors have a target painted on them while unpaid advocates can civilly push their point of view without consequence?==== Unpaid advocacy, clearly. Advocacy, by definition, means the additions will be of a POV nature. Paid editing does not necessarily mean this at all. Often, paid editing merely means the update of financial information or more info on the history of the subject.

Yes, I do, but I also understand why such a target exists, as do practically all paid editors. The actions of unethical paid editors in the past has caused an atmosphere of inherent mistrust for the entire subject. Which is why I'm glad that Public Relations professionals and other paid editors are now stepping forward to do things properly, to show that paid editing can be done within Wikipedia's rules.

Do you think WP:COI needs to be updated, promoted to policy, or demoted to essay status? Should policy prohibit direct editing by paid editors?
I think WP:COI is perfectly fine as the guideline it is. Though I do think its wording needs to be updated, to be more clear and to also more properly explain what kind of editing is and is not proper within the COI rules.

No, it should not. As I stated elsewhere, there are a number of kinds of edits that paid editors can do comfortably, whether it is fixing grammar and sentence structure or adding references or uploading images. All of these things, and the rest outlined here are perfectly fine for paid editors to do. As long as the editors themselves are upfront about their COI and make sure to have support from other editors for any major changes, I don't see any issues with letting paid editors do the edits I just pointed out.

Should COI disclosures be required for paid editors?
Yes, of course. Just like anyone else who has a sufficiently large COI, whether they be the subject of an article, related to the subject, having been involved directly (sometimes even indirectly) in the creation of the subject, or whether they have been paid to improve the article. All of these should have a statement on the talk page, via Template:Connected contributor, that they are involved.

====Is the encyclopedia failing in some way? By not cracking down on paid editors more harshly, or by leaving gaps and inaccuracies about living people and corporations that paid editors have an interest in fixing?==== No and no. We already have the processes in place to deal with unethical paid editors and dealing with them "more harshly" would likely only result in collateral damage, whether that be to articles or to the blocking of innocent editors. Neither of those are things any of us want to do and I think that we already have the situation of unethical paid editing already well in hand. There's some that sneaks through, sure, but I don't think it's possible to catch every last person doing something wrong on Wikipedia, just like it isn't possible to immediately root out all subtle vandalism. These are both things that, through our already established methods, will sort themselves out over time.

As for the second, just by the fact that we are now working with such editors to fix those inaccuracies shows that we're taking steps to mitigate it. Articles aren't perfect when they're first made or ever and inaccuracies can enter in over time, whether that be from other editors or just from things changing in the world for that subject. All we should focus on is doing our best to fix the problems that we're presented with now and do our best to lessen the amount of such inaccuracies. But I don't think it's possible to stop them from ever occurring. If we wanted to do that, then the best method would be to not let anyone edit ever again.

====I've worked with numerous paid editors in the irc en-help channel, and you do yeoman's work at the WikiProject Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board. Do you ever feel like you're doing other people's work for them, that they're being compensated for and you're not?==== Of course not. Being able to help other editors and improve Wikipedia is the exact point of all of this. If it really comes down to something like getting "credit" for my actions, I could say that increased edit count is one such benefit. Also, for new articles proposed by paid editors, I try my best to get them submitted to DYK if they meet the requirements therein, so I also get the compensation of a DYK nom. But as long as the process helps improves articles, that's all that really matters in the end.

Have you ever been accused of having a COI? If so, how did you deal with it?
A few times. Most of them were just for my involvement in an article, where an editor I'm in a dispute with accused me of having such and such involvement in the subject, when it wasn't true. Those sorts of accusations I just shrugged off and explained how they weren't true and how they couldn't be true. As far as I can remember, the one time where I was accused of having a COI and it was at least partly relevant was my editing of the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. As I said elsewhere, in response to my editing the article, a negative ED page was made on me. After that, I was accused of having a COI whenever I got into a dispute with an ED-related account on the article. In those cases I explained that my opinion and, more or less, lack of COI was the same as before the ED article has been made on me. It didn't change anything in my mind or my actions on the article and I followed talk page consensus regardless. I also explained that if something like that was going to fly, then they would just make articles on anyone working against them in the article, a loophole in COI that we really couldn't let fly. But I digress, a complicated situation without an easy explanation. Regardless, in all cases, I just stated my opinion in regards to the articles and otherwise followed any consensus that arose about the articles.

====For the following list of problems--no visual editor, few women, poor editor retention, pending changes, lack of civility, BLP issues, vandalism, lack of global south editors--how would you rank them in order of urgency and importance, and where would paid/coi editing fit on that list, first being the most pressing?==== Vandalism, BLP issues, no visual editor, few women, lack of civility, unethical paid editing, lack of global south editors, pending changes, poor editor retention.

I would personally add in WP:ACTRIAL just behind the visual editor, personally, but that's just me.

As for paid editing, I assume you're speaking of the unethical type. I would place it just after lack of civility. Poor editor retention has already been shown to be a non-issue, because editor numbers has stayed relatively stable for several months. While I did support pending changes once upon a time, I do see how it could be unwieldy and I don't view it as highly necessary at this point in time. As for global south editors, surprisingly, we seem to have several strong editors not from the global south who are, I believe, professors about southern topics and are heavily involved in those articles. Add to that the growing student programs we have in Mexico and are working to expand in other countries across the southern hemisphere, and I believe it's a problem that is being solved over time with the methods we already have set up.

Tell me about your background as a Wikipedian. When did you get started? What were your first edits and first impressions?  What got you hooked?
That's going pretty far back, all the way to high school in 2006. I'd often used Wikipedia for my own interests, or for a school project here and there, pretty much all the way back to 2003. I don't quite remember why it was that I first got involved on Wikipedia, but looking back, this was my first edit. It was a flash game I had been playing at the time. Wikipedia was something I really took to, I think, not having much trouble with the wikicode, as I parsed how to do it from edits other editors made. Of course, my editing back then was rather erratic and infrequent, Wikipedia not being something I was rather devoted to yet.

What got me truly involved was likely a combination of both my love for science and everything related to it and the rapport I established with my early friends on-wiki, such as my once upon a time adopter User:Chrishy man. But, as I became more engaged in adding content and making new articles, I became dedicated to the people I knew and the articles I had made, like my early efforts with Biosocial theory and Albert Oppel.

====You're one of the minority of Wikipedians whose real name is known. How did that come about? Has it had positive or negative ramifications in you on-Wikipedia work? How about your off-Wikipedia life?==== For how the connection was first made, that quasi-honor would go to Wikipedia Review, after I think I made a connection between my username and my real name at one point in time in the past on a different website. Since they have the habit of trying to out every user they dislike on Wikipedia (which usually means every admin and anyone who opposes their edits at any point in time), they posted my info. After that, I was involved in editing the Encyclopedia Dramatica page after the website was shut down, garnering the ire of one of the new admins over at the fork website they had made. So they made an article on me and "doxed" me, though with either laughably incorrect or out of date information. The article is pretty funny, all of you should go read it.

Anyways, it hasn't really affected my on-Wiki work or my off-Wiki life at all, beyond the fact that I'm no longer bothering at all to try to hide the connection between my username and my real name. It works better that way regardless as I'm working through WikiProject Cooperation with people in a semi-official capacity.

You've garnered a reputation as a bit of a muckracker. Where do you think that instinct to root out and sometime stir up controversy comes from?
The answer to that would probably take up far too many lines of text and too many details about my personal life. Let's just say that I've long been the type of person who both tries to find the truth about subjects and who tries to make the world a better place, whether that be through spreading information or by more direct forms of help. I have a deep-felt opposition to secrecy that leads to people being harmed in any way, so I also have a natural desire to expose such secrets. It's this, I guess, that leads to what would be called "stirring up controversy". I see it as pushing for the answers they don't want you to know, though I suppose that does make me a bit of a muckracker, huh?

What article or project are you most proud of on Wikipedia? What article or project was most controversial or unsuccessful? What did you learn from it?
For an article I worked on individually, I'm most proud of my Good article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass. I'm not really the type to have an eye for the details needed to finish writing a Good or Featured article, most of the time, so I am rather proud for having made that one.

Another article that I'm proud of and that is likely to be and has been decently controversial is Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidacy. It's an article that was written largely by WWB Too, who was paid in the past to work on it, and myself. WWB made sure to stay out of any conversations regarding the controversies section, because of his COI, and I fielded most of that. By working together with other editors, we were able to reach a compromise about the state of the article and its coverage of various things.

I learned that the best way to deal with a dispute is to make a reasonable compromise that takes both sides into account and satisfies both of them. That's not to say doing as such is easy. But it can immediately fix the issue if you do it right, so it's worth it to try.

What's your favorite quote or piece of advice about Wikipedia?
Remember that we're building an encyclopedia.

Too many editors get bogged down in the details or get caught up in the perpetual dramas that occur on Wikipedia and lose sight of why we're all here in the first place. We're here because we want to make the best encyclopedia in the world, the most comprehensive, the most accurate. Anything not working toward that is largely irrelevant. If all of the people caught up in drama on ANI, AN, and elsewhere focused on building content for just one day, just think of how much would be accomplished in those 24 hours. Each of us has our own skill sets, sure, but we should all remember that, in the end, we want to be making edits that improve the encyclopedia, not anything else.

What is your plan for the next 5 years with Wikipedia? What do you think its biggest challenges are, and how do you see the community addressing them?
My plan is to just keep editing as I have been. Hopefully, further expansion of WikiProject Cooperation will also come about, along with policy and guideline clarification in the area of paid editing. But, other than that, I'm going to just keep editing.

For Wikipedia itself, I think the main thing to focus on is to improve the number of people both that read and that edit Wikipedia. Editor retention isn't as big of an issue now, as it's been revealed that editor numbers are fairly stable, but increasing those numbers would benefit all of us. Continuing with methods to make it easier to edit and to make the rules clearer to understand are also a priority. At the same time, we need to focus on improving the quality of Wikipedia overall. These two things tie together obviously, with the latter being a general effect of the first, along with time.

Other than that though, it seems to me that Wikipedia is sailing along fine. Sure, there are blips of incidents here and there, but overall, we seem to be doing quite well for ourselves. Now all we need to do is maintain and improve.

====Are you 'pro' paid editing? How would you respond to the potential charge that you are enabling, condoning, or inviting more paid and COI editing by helping facilitate it? Do you think helping some paid editors follow the project's policies could mask deeper problems with those who do not, or who provide cover to them—a gloss of reassurance where we would otherwise be more vigilant or less tolerant?====