Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-31/Recent research

While I'm at it, I think that you mean that the discussion on Jimmy's talk page about SOPA was in 2011, not 2001.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FallingGravity (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence that First Monday has pubhlished a useful and important paper on anything whatsoever; just bad papers on important subjects, trolling for attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Spanish Wikipedia is anything like the English Wikipedia then there is a reason why they would score poorly for drug dosage information: we strongly discourage including it. We don't give medical advice and this is an open wiki - both reasons why such information would be unacceptable. This is an encyclopaedia, not a drug formulary. -- Colin°Talk 11:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was the first thing I noticed in that section too. Please let's not start adding that kind of information just because some external reviewer expected to find it. We have good reasons for not including it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is one of the best Signpost articles I have ever seen. Good job! As for the SOPA blackout, I think a case can be made for it starting on Reddit, then the many Redditors who are also Wikipedia editors starting "a landslide that led to the protests" on Wikipedia. This appears to predate Jimbo's straw poll. (What percentage of Wikipedians watch Jimbo's talk page anyway?) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any links to show that landslide? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I recall that they picked January 18 (though I don't have a cite to hand) - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The date might have been picked on Reddit, I think that's correct. But I am asking about proof of the assertion it was done by (or with a significant contribution) by Wikipedia editors who were also active on Reddit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * October 26, 2011
 * SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) introduced in House
 * http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show


 * October 26, 2011:
 * Reddit goes nuts with 5454 upvotes and 3181 comments
 * http://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/me5e9/american_censorship_day_stand_up_for/


 * November 15th, 2011:
 * Wikimedia weighs in
 * http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/


 * December 10, 2011:
 * Wales straw poll
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_91#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike


 * I have over 100,000 karma points on Reddit under a pseudonym (I also have an account under my real name but do not use it) and was heavily involved in the runup to the blackout. We have a fair number of Reddit users who casually dropped wikiisms like "NPOV" or "noticeboard", and a much larger number who asked "will Wikipedia and/or Google join us?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's interesting to know about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure it's worth getting-into-it, but I find the review of the SOPA paper above really bizarre. It kinds of reminds me of a parody about reviewing various printed books as if they were novels - i.e. the telephone listings were praised for immediately introducing many interesting characters, but didn't flesh them out and had no plot or drama. Here the reviewer is treating a humanities paper as if it were a mathematical analysis, and thus finding it wanting. For example - "At the same time, we are provided with no number, no percentage, and certainly no correlation to back up this claim". (oh no, he gave only one example, ok here's another) "Due to the lack of hard data, most conclusions are unfortunately rendered dubious, and the paper has a tendency to make strong claims that are not backed up by data or even developed later on.". Now, maybe one can argue humanities papers are gibberish because of those sort of problems in general, and certainly that case can be made :-). But it's weird to see that general argument applied as if it were a specific failing, to an ordinary paper in its genre. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the sort of thing First Monday does. I see they've taken "A Critique of Vulgar Raymondism" down Ah, sorry, you're talking about the story - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reviewer holds a PhD in sociology. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbayer, yes, I checked the reviewer's user page. Which makes the approach even more strange. One would think s/he had encountered many nonmathematical papers by now (papers also at least regarded as meaningful). It's as if "review" was taken to mean "do a review as if it were a journal article in your field, to the way you think such articles are best done". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Seth that sociology papers are generally not held to the same standards as "hard science", but I also agree that this means they can be more easily dismissed as sheer opinion. Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad sociology papers are not held to the same stadards as "hard science" and can and should be dismissed. Comte and Durkheim are turning in their graves... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my recollection too is that the meme essentially became "SOPA threatens Wikipedia" – and that was clearly false. Andreas JN 466 03:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In sociology, we do quantitative research, too. Quite a lot of it, in fact, through not all the time (I myself have published papers with very little quantitative analysis, so I'd like to think I can understand both sides of the barricade). But this is not a theory paper; if it would I wouldn't complain about missing data and methodology. But from part 3 of the paper it is clear it leaves the theory and moves on, as the author implies she collected some data (but she doesn't tell us how) and then she attempts to analyze it - or rather, she draws conclusions, as I see little of any analysis, just conclusion, without so much as a hint about the data structure. I am not asking for regression models here, now, but how can one talk about the trends without so much as the number of cases, percentages or a single graph? The author writes at one point "We can trace a new line of arguments" - and I'd like to ask how did she trace this line? Where's the time plot, where's the count even?
 * As it happens, I have in fact researched Wikipedia and SOPA vote myself, and have a paper on that topic under review, so I am not complaining about something impossible; the numbers are there, can be easily collected and analyzed. Just to pick a bone with another statement in the article: "almost all of the people who opposed the blackout pointed to the institutional problem of using Wikipedia for political goals, and claimed it was illegitimate and “unconstitutional” under Wikipedia’s internal norms". Well, according to my numbers on that very issue, it was only 40.3% of protesters who did it (89 total out of 221 who objected to at least one of the aspects of the protest as it passed), not "almost all". I really don't want to be disrespectful to a fellow scholar, but if you make claims, cite your data. And it's not like we have any numbers or methodology to dispute the claims in this article - and here's at least one I have a bone with. The discussion of legitimacy and the description of the vote are fine, but when you make claims like "The only argument that equals the strength of the legitimacy argument is one of existential threat, a battle of survival.", you should have a way to prove it (and for the record, if we are talking about pure numerical strength, I counted five other types of arguments that surpassed the strength of the legitimacy arguments, the existential threat bypassed it by a factor of 2.5 if we count just the threat to Wikipedia, or 4, if we include the threat to the Internet).
 * Now, our articles on Humanities does not mention sociology, so if you are coming from that field, you may be right my review is a bit harsh - but I will stand by Comte and the scientific method. Which, sadly, I didn't see much in that paper. How are we supposed to replicate the results without methodology given? Aaargh. As it stands, the humanities argument does have some weight, as a lot of what I see in this paper is an essay - author's thoughts backed by anecdotal evidence (the paper has one, I repeat, one data point - a single quote).
 * Anyway, I'll end on the note that it is not a bad paper. If I was reviewing it I'd suggest a major revise (add methodology and data, or drop all references to having collected and analyzed the said data, and focus on theory) and resubmit. Apparently, other reviewers disagreed with me, as this was published in a peer reviewed journal. Goes to show the world of "academic lottery" (as in - will you get reviewers who will go easy on you or not?). Congrats to the author for getting the piece published, I just don't think it was there yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh! In sociology, we do quantitative research, too most of it borders on junk science. No matter, the issue remains that the SOPA page in mid January 2012 was unmitigated rubbish, mostly sourced from opposition press releases and blogs. SOPA was not an existential threat to wikipedia, being as wikipedia is based in the US. Any making such a claim were either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying. John lilburne (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your fallacy of generalization (one critical study of a tiny subfield of social science published in a popular magazine is hardly representative), I am looking forward to the time you add sources to your claim above. Somehow I would like to see a single reliable source backing your assertion that SOPA was not a threat to Wikipedia. I hope I am not asking for too much (and no, I am not presenting sources to the contrary, but I am also not making an assertion that it was a threat). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I had no idea that I was "either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying". I am interested in how you managed to acquire an infallible ability to interpret legislation -- that would seem to be a handy ability to have. Does this magical ability also allow you to determine what percentage of a given science is junk? That would also be a handy ability to have. Basing my opinions on evidence and logic really is tedious, so this could be a real timesaver for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lawyers are simple souls and interpret legislation based on the plain meaning of the words used. See Law 101. If the wording of US legislation says "foreign based websites" then the Judiciary don't interpret it to mean US websites. If the wording says "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity" then they don't interpret it to mean any old website that isn't "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity". So once they've determined that a) its a foreign website, and b) that it is "primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity" I'm sorting guessing that the website in question wouldn't be wikipedia. John lilburne (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, because the law is never abuse. You may want to read up on patent trolls, or stuff like this or this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't discard rape laws because some people make false accusations. If you want to propose that we should abandon all laws on the basis that they may be abused, then make your case. I'll listen and promise not to laugh. John lilburne (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazing! First I find out to my great surprise that those who disagree with you are either ignorant or deliberately lying, and now I suddenly discover that we are proposing that we abandon all laws! Perhaps you can save some time by jumping right to the part where we are all Nazi Pedophile Bedwetters. (Come to think of it, Hitler was a big fan of strawman arguments...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me that erected the strawman that SOPA needed to be opposed because law is abused. As for the rest well ... when one spends one's days hanging out on the street corner with the drug dealer, and boogies the night away with the bootlegger, one can hardly be surprised when honest, decent kind of folks look at one askance. John lilburne (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This was never about the law being used to close down access to Wikipedia. It was about the law being used to close down access to foreign websites, in a way which (because it was badly written) presumed them to be infringing.  Experience has shown us that corporates who, for example subpoena a robot's personal details, and send cease and desist notices to laser printers, would certainly be shutting down access to many, many, sites, which may not have the resources to defend themselves, offending or not.  As well as cutting off access to source and external links, this would feed the climate of balkanization, encouraging retaliatory actions from other countries. Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

HOW WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN IS DEPICTED ABOVE:


 * "SOPA was not an existential threat to Wikipedia, being as Wikipedia is based in the US. Any making such a claim were either ignorant of the way that the judiciary interpret laws, or deliberately lying."


 * "If the wording of US legislation says 'foreign based websites' then the Judiciary don't interpret it to mean US websites. If the wording says 'primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity' then they don't interpret it to mean any old website that isn't 'primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity'."

HOW WIKIPEDIA'S CONCERN WAS DEPICTED BY REP. LAMAR SMITH


 * "SOPA targets only foreign Web sites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. Domestic Web sites ... are not covered by this legislation."

WIKIPEDIA'S ACTUAL STATED CONCERN (WP:BLACKOUT):


 * "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that has been developed by tens of thousands of volunteers from all over the world over the last 11 years. Together, we have created millions of articles containing billions of facts, referenced to hundreds of thousands of sources from around the world. We have grown to be one of the most frequently accessed websites in the world. Wikipedians are fiercely proud and protective of our ability to freely share knowledge with the rest of the world, as the first of 846 related projects in 280 languages working under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation."


 * "In late 2011, the United States Congress proposed two legislative bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), which legal scholars and others have advised have the potential to significantly change the way that information can be shared through the Internet. It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web."

It wasn't an accurate depiction of Wikipedia's concerns when Lamar Smith first said it, and it still isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute - Guy Macon, are you agreed that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA ? And are you saying that even though Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA, SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though it was again not threatened itself? Note, please, I've heard the pro/anti SOPA arguments too many times, there's no need to waste space on them. I'm trying to clarify exactly what you are claiming vis-a-vis Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No. I do not agree that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA. Certain specific threats are precluded -- the law as written does not allow them to directly shut down Wikipedia -- but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia was not threatened by SOPA. Not all threats are direct threats. You don't have to use a gun to harm a species. You can wipe out a species through Habitat destruction without ever directly harming any member of that species. And you can cause great harm to Wikipedia if you damage the environment Wikipedia lives in - a free and open web. That was Wikipedia's stated concern. And it is disingenuous for Lamar Smith or anyone who parrots his talking points to suggest otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say then you're redefining "threat" in a way which is not appropriate - and if I were to be harsh, misleading. Being specific, do we agree that if "threat" is defined as a take-down as was contemplated under SOPA for sites primarily dedicated to infringement, that Wikipedia was not threatened in this sense of the word? You're using what I call a "culture war" definition - anything you deem as harmful to the "habitat" or "environment" then can be called a "threat". Again, that's not how the term is commonly used. It's a bit like when Jimmy Wales claims Larry Sanger couldn't be co-founder of Wikipedia by definition because Sanger was an employee of Bomis - it's switching between two different senses of a word. Anyway, refining, is it your view that SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though Wikipedia was exempt itself from being taken down by SOPA? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So my using the exact definition Wikipedia used -- agreed upon by the community and signed off by the foundation -- is "redefining", and if I want to avoid being accused of redefining I have to agree to use the definition put forth by U.S. Representative Lamar Smith (sponsor of SOPA)? If you have a shred of evidence that supports what you claim Wikipedia's official position at the end of the discussion was, this would be a good time to produce it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is denying that the WMF didn't redefine "threat" for political purposes. John lilburne (talk)
 * The meme was "Wikipedia is threatened". Sue Gardner for example said the legislation, "if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia". She quotes the words "devastating to the free and open web" from the RfC closing statement, approvingly. And she said, "although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently, 'We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate.'" The implied meaning is clear: it sounds like the legislation threatened Wikipedia's ability to operate. Tim Starling later commented on that on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, saying: "Maybe SOPA was a 'serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet', and worth fighting against, but it wasn't a threat to Wikipedia's existence." Andreas JN 466 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Guy Macon - I'm not asking about "official position", as (whatever that is) it cannot reply. I'm discussing your reasoning and justification, which may or may not correspond to whatever PR that the WMF came up with. Note indeed, it's quite possible for a political statement to use hyperbolic or dubious language - this should not need to be argued. After all, it would be pretty silly to claim that because a political campaign uses terminology, that by itself makes the usage standard or reasonable (isn't twisting meaning what the "Orwellian language" cliche is all about?). And my query "is it your view that SOPA was just such a bad law that it justified Wikipedia getting dramatically involved in political lobbying on one side of a law even though Wikipedia was exempt itself from being taken down by SOPA?" seem to me rather straightforward (yes, I'm putting in some derogatory connotations in my phrasing, but I think it's very mild and acceptable in such a debate). Forgive me if I'm not respecting your desire not to comment further, I wanted to respond to what you said above. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet so many seemed to think that SOPA was an existential threat to wikipedia. The actual SOPA page in mid January 2012, was predominately expressed in those terms. The vast majority of references were to external page of opposition to SOPA. To quote Rory Cellan-Jones at the BBC:
 * All pretence of impartiality was abandoned, the SOPA page itself is a testament to that. And over the past year, more and more people have been coming forward to tell how they communities were manipulated and lied to at the behest of Google and other mega-corporations. John lilburne (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than the anecdotal "And yet so many seemed to think that...", why not ask the sociologist who in the thread above said that he "researched Wikipedia and SOPA vote [him]self, and [has] a paper on that topic under review"? Why guess when the actual figures are available for the asking?
 * Rather than the anecdotal "And yet so many seemed to think that...", why not ask the sociologist who in the thread above said that he "researched Wikipedia and SOPA vote [him]self, and [has] a paper on that topic under review"? Why guess when the actual figures are available for the asking?


 * As a general comment (not specifically addressed to the comment above), if someone wants to make an argument like "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [actual stated reason], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I would be fine with that. If someone wants to make an argument like "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [reason made up out of whole cloth by Lamar Smith], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I am going to have to cry foul. And if the argument is "Wikipedia joined the blackout because [reason given by X% of those who joined the discussion], and that wasn't a good enough reason to justify doing that", I would have to ask what X is, and whether it is being claimed that Wikipedia's actual stated reason for joining the blackout was not the community position. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Well because the maths that sociologist's use tends to be suspect. As some have said they only finish the analysis when they've tortured the data enough that it gives them the answer they were expecting. Piotrus's paper may or may not do that, we won't know until we've tortured his data ourselves. As for the rest of your rant, there are buttons that can pressed in most communities, which will generate a knee-jerk reaction. On reddit, and here to some extent, it is the RIAA/MPAA is coming to get you. In other's it is Obama isn't an American, or the government blew up the Twin Towers, or they are giving polio vaccinations to our kids to make them sterile - kill the doctors and nurses. Go figure. In any case the SOPA page does not approach NPOV by a long way. John lilburne (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "As for the rest of your rant", clearly you are not interested in having a civil discussion, preferring personal attacks and cheap debating tricks. Sorry, not interested. I am withdrawing from this conversation and unwatching this page. WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)