The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Research Committee
thekohser
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 4:25am
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 5:15am
Post #2


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



......here we go again..........
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 5:38am
Post #3


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 4:25am) *

Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.

It unpaid Public Relationship assistant work. Gosh, how important I would feel doing it. Unfortunately, my CV does not have the space to fit in more slave labor.

What is "support the management ... of relationships with researchers" anyway?
QUOTE
Erik Moeller erik at wikimedia.org
Tue Aug 3 01:39:44 UTC 2010

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers who would like to
support the management of relationships between Wikimedia communities
and the broader communities of researchers who study Wikimedia
projects. We hope to create a committee with volunteers from both
groups with a rich combination of skills and backgrounds.

Here are some areas of work that this new Wikimedia Research
Committee, with help from the Wikimedia Foundation staff, is intended
to explore:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:50pm
Post #4


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:25am) *

Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.


Yet Another Logo And Motto Exhibition (WP:YALAME)

Howsabout —
  • Wikipediot Resuck Committee : The Best Phony Research (PR) Your Money Can Buy
Watcha wanna bet the Credulous Point Of View (CPOV) folks already know about this?

Something for you “Follar the Dollar” gumpshoes to look into …

Time will tell whether they Leipzigged when they shoulda Leapzagged …

Jon dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 2:16pm
Post #5


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 6:50am) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 12:25am) *

Jeez, another committee I'll have to sign up for. I wonder, maybe a famous London statistician will also get involved.


Yet Another Logo And Motto Exhibition (WP:YALAME)

Howsabout —
  • Wikipediot Resuck Committee : The Best Phony Research (PR) Your Money Can Buy
Watcha wanna bet the Credulous Point Of View (CPOV) folks already know about this?

Something for you “Follar the Dollar” gumpshoes to look into …

Time will tell whether they Leipzigged when they shoulda Leapzagged …

Jon dry.gif


Imagine some other subject of research wanting to determine what information to provide, what avenues of inquiry to pursue and what standards of review to be used. I mean other than maybe Mexican Drug Cartels.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 3rd August 2010, 6:13pm
Post #6


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



It may be appropriate here to copy a would-be post of mine to the Foundation-l mailing list, which is currently on hold for "moderation".

QUOTE
Erik,

Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?

I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.

Thanks,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 6th August 2010, 5:39pm
Post #7


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 3rd August 2010, 2:13pm) *

It may be appropriate here to copy a would-be post of mine to the Foundation-l mailing list, which is currently on hold for "moderation".

QUOTE
Erik,

Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there some sort of loyalty "litmus test" going to be applied?

I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a public clarification of this question would be a helpful learning.

Thanks,

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs




Ha ha! They posted it. And it drew two responses from "the Gerards". Here's my response, which won't likely get published:

QUOTE
Gerard M. says:

Dear Greg,
This is not about criticism but about research. With respect I have not seen
your research papers, I am not aware of your credentials that would make you
a choice to be considered for being part of a research committee.

Given that the work of the committee includes work on policies that have to
do with access to confidential data, it seems to me only natural that your
status as being banned from several Wikis is an other reason why you are
easily disqualified from participating in a research committee.

At that you have had your "test" several times and as a result you are a
known entity.
Thanks,
GerardM

++++++++++++++++++++

Allow me to make you aware of my credentials, Gerard, since you asked "with respect".

I'm the Director of Market Research for a company valued at $52 billion. I've been making a living with market research for 18 years now.

One of my co-authored research papers was published in a scientific journal supplement:
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/data/183/3/DC1/1

I've written a white paper about research for public relations:
http://www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%20for%20PR.doc

For the more casual reader, I've maintained an occasional blog on research since 2005:
http://insidemr.blogspot.com/

And, I've conducted numerous informal but systematic research studies about Wikimedia properties:
http://www.wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia_Vandalism_Study
http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/ (You'll have to ask around about that one.)
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Survey_about_Wikipedia (Currently, a bit slow-going on the analysis, due to editing parameters imposed on the Wikiversity community by Jimmy Wales)

I am curious about this "access to confidential data" of which you speak. This presupposes that other members of the vast Wikimedia community do currently have access to this confidential data. Have they been vetted in some way that you can be assured that they won't do something with that data more monstrous than what I would ever do with such data? I'm trusted with confidential customer account data by a $52 billion company. Respectfully, how about you?


******************
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:

Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!

******************

Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no?

http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipedia

Hope that helps!

Greg

--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 6th August 2010, 9:12pm
Post #8


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:39am) *

******************
Meanwhile, D. Gerard says:

Trolling blogs probably isn't the best resume item, no. HTH!

******************

Playing dress-up probably is an "interesting" resume item, no?

http://tinyurl.com/david-gerard-wikipedia

Hope that helps!

Greg


Give it up, Greg. David "The" Gerard will never let you in to do anything.

If you want someone to compare him to, how about Dr. Kevin Pezzi?
Raging egomaniac, sockpuppeteer and silly-website generator.

David Gerard is the pseudo-libertarian alterna-culture wiki-universe Bizarro Kevin Pezzi.
But both assholes. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seurat
post Fri 6th August 2010, 9:57pm
Post #9


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri 6th Aug 2010, 8:04pm
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177



bored.gif I thought that the folks around here would enjoy seeing a group of identifiable people, including wtf.gif experts, participating in "steering" roles on Wikipedia. I wonder what Sanger thinks about this.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 6th August 2010, 10:16pm
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 2:57pm) *
I thought that the folks around here would enjoy seeing a group of identifiable people, including wtf.gif experts, participating in "steering" roles on Wikipedia.

Well, an expert just offered his services, and was rejected out of hand.
Because he's a well-known critic of Wikipedia and Jimbo, and was banned
from WMF sites for that reason. The only reason.

Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.

QUOTE
I wonder what Sanger thinks about this.

Feel free to send him a message. You might not like the response.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seurat
post Fri 6th August 2010, 11:04pm
Post #11


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri 6th Aug 2010, 8:04pm
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:16pm) *

Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.

dry.gif I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 6th August 2010, 11:30pm
Post #12


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



I don't mean to flatter Kohs, but the problem is that he is just too intelligent for them.

I see this a lot. it is not a question of "right" and "wrong", adherence to the cult etc ...

It is just that any editor that is too quick and too clever will make the inmates unhappy because they don't understand what is going on and he is moving too quickly for them.

If there was intelligent leadership, they would take on board someone like Kohs. it is far better to have the best or most committed critics "inside the tent" pissing out, rather than "outside the tent pissing in" to quote Lyndon B. Johnson.

It is far better to enfranchise your opponents rather than feed them with the material they need to destroy you.

This is what Wikipedian cultists fail to realise time and time again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Fri 6th August 2010, 11:30pm
Post #13


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Is it just me, or is this just a ploy by the WMF to steer research studies on their websites to conclusions more friendly to the WMF? Look at the "areas of work" that Erik outlines:
QUOTE
* developing policy around researcher permissions for non-public data
* supporting the development of subject recruitment processes
* reviewing research projects when conflicts-of-interest arise
* articulating and channeling requests for data and technical resources
* helping to formulate the key strategic research objectives of the
Wikimedia movement (see strategy.wikimedia.org)
* helping to formulate small tactical experiments related to
Wikimedia's strategic goals
* developing an open access policy as a requirement for significant
support from the Wikimedia Foundation
* helping create a "starter kit" for researchers to avoid duplication of effort


And what's up with the call for volunteers? If it is that important, why aren't WMF staff being assigned to this "Research Committee"? Like so much else with the WMF, this looks rather hinky and makes little sense. Do they actually think a truly independent and ethical researcher would fall for any of this bilge?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Fri 6th August 2010, 11:32pm
Post #14


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:04am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 6th August 2010, 10:16pm) *

Seems to me that if they were serious, they'd accept a wide range of "experts".
But they're not serious. They only want "experts" who are willing to suck the
teeny-tiny knobs of Jimbo and Friends, and salute the Wiki-Flag each day.

dry.gif I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. rolleyes.gif

Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Fri 6th August 2010, 11:53pm
Post #15


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs




Wikimedia Research Network

Chief Research Coordinator

Chief Research Officer
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seurat
post Sat 7th August 2010, 12:35am
Post #16


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri 6th Aug 2010, 8:04pm
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:32pm) *

QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:04am) *

dry.gif I think it's entirely reasonable of them to limit such a committee to people who want Wikipedia to succeed. If you want to make lulzy analogies about "saluting the Wiki-Flag each day", that's your prerogative, but it doesn't negate the fact that the folks making the decisions do not trust Gregory Kohs to act in their best interest. rolleyes.gif

Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line.

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. rolleyes.gif

I'm not against Greg being part of this research group, nor against him being excluded. I'm merely pointing out that it's a natural consequence of his vociferous criticism that the generalization will be made that he wishes to "hasten the day".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Sat 7th August 2010, 12:51am
Post #17


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 1:35am) *

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions".

Bullshit. I can guarantee that everyone at the WMF is well aware of Greg (who remains, AFAIK, the only person ever to have wrung an apology from Jimmy Wales for his treatment at the hands of the Wikipedia goon-squad).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Subtle Bee
post Sat 7th August 2010, 12:52am
Post #18


melli fera, fera...
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 9th Mar 2010, 3:06pm
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) *

QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 6th August 2010, 11:32pm) *

Subtle but important error there. Most folk who know Greg do know he'd act in what he believes to be Wikipedia's best interest; he's a pretty enthusiastic banger of the open-editing drum. The issue is that Jimbo and co aren't willing to accept anyone whose vision of where Wikipedia ought to go differs in any way from their own party line.

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. rolleyes.gif

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. rolleyes.gif

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seurat
post Sat 7th August 2010, 1:56am
Post #19


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri 6th Aug 2010, 8:04pm
From: WP:POINT
Member No.: 24,177



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:51am) *

QUOTE(Seurat @ Sat 7th August 2010, 1:35am) *

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions".

Bullshit. I can guarantee that everyone at the WMF is well aware of Greg (who remains, AFAIK, the only person ever to have wrung an apology from Jimmy Wales for his treatment at the hands of the Wikipedia goon-squad).

Can you similarly guarantee that they know to what extent he would act in their best interests? I'm not arguing that they're not aware of Greg, I'm arguing that they don't know that he might be helpful. They do not find his criticisms helpful, and that weighs against him. They don't comment here talking to him or about him, and they therefore do not get to know him. What leads from that is obvious: if you want Greg to be included in this sort of thing, work on convincing them that he can, in fact, be helpful to their mission, that he does have their interests at heart despite his criticism.

QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:52am) *

QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) *

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. rolleyes.gif

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. rolleyes.gif

There are a number of ways I could answer this. Choose one:
  1. "Wait, did you just compare Greg to shit? confused.gif"
  2. "I can totally understand! I don't want to grok fecal matter myself. I prefer to flush it. wink.gif"
  3. Hey, let's play some Mad Libs! laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Subtle Bee
post Sat 7th August 2010, 2:06am
Post #20


melli fera, fera...
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue 9th Mar 2010, 3:06pm
Member No.: 17,787



QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 6:56pm) *

QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Sat 7th August 2010, 12:52am) *

QUOTE(Seurat @ Fri 6th August 2010, 5:35pm) *

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know Greg" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way he goes about his criticisms, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know Greg. rolleyes.gif

Subtle but important error there. "Most folk who know shit" ≠ "the folks making the decisions". And as a result of the way they go about avoiding criticism, the folks making the decisions aren't so interested in getting to know shit. rolleyes.gif

There are a number of ways I could answer this. Choose one:
  1. "Wait, did you just compare Greg to shit? confused.gif"
  2. "I can totally understand! I don't want to grok fecal matter myself. I prefer to flush it. wink.gif"
  3. Hey, let's play some Mad Libs! laugh.gif

1. Yeah. But he's a pretty good shit. smile.gif
2. Kinda ironic, given your username...
3. Way ahead of you.

But no matter which gambit you choose, you'll still miss the point, which in a way is the point. Or at least illustrates it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th 12 17, 7:03pm