Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face Options

[Peter Damian]

The transcript of Van Haeften's evidence is now available. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-c...PI281111ev7.pdf

I have copied it below. I have written to some members of the committee explaining in detail, and with examples, of why I think his evidence is grossly misleading.

Ashley Van Haeften: Can I pick up on Wikipedia as an example of trust? People trust the brand that Wikipedia has, and that comes from good editorial policies rather than regulation. They are highly credible, public and well enforced by our community. I am speaking as a Wikipedian myself. Those policies are developed by community consensus. You can go in and you can contribute to that consensus. In particular with biographies, they fairly represent the enforcement of polices to ensure facts are presented with appropriate weight and are verifiable. In my opinion, Wikipedia already has more credibility than the majority of mainstream tabloid press, and high levels of external regulation are highly unlikely to influence our collaborative way of working.
Q555 Lord Black of Brentwood: But the editorial policies you are talking about are a form of internal regulation.
Ashley Van Haeften: They are the editorial policies that our community have created for themselves.
Q571 Ms Stuart: Ashley Van Haeften, wearing your Wikipedia hat, could you respond to George Eustice’s idea of kitemarking? While we were sitting here I googled your name and tried to work out whether you had your own Wikipedia entry, and you don’t. I was wondering whether you want to say a bit about that too.
Ashley Van Haeften: Well, Wikipedia only contains information that is notable, not transient. We are not a holder of indiscriminate information, and I am transient and not notable. Lord Gold: That might change.
Ashley Van Haeften: The kitemark is quite relevant, I think, for Wikipedia. The brand is clear. I am speaking for myself as a Wikipedian, not the Wikimedia Foundation or anything. There were references previously to the amount of money to be made. Wikipedia and its community believe they are completely neutral, because it is not sponsored and it does not have advertising. It runs as a charity for open knowledge. There is this distinction to be made, I think, between gossip and knowledge. Knowledge will always transcend geographical borders. That is probably something everybody supports, even when that contains privacy issues. Wikipedia works because of strong editorial policies that the community believes in, and that encompasses policies for the biographies of living people and biographies of the recently deceased. When you google a recently deceased famous person today you will find that the bare facts are there and the things that, for example, are transiently tweeted are not. Those tweets will all evaporate within a week, but the Wikipedia encyclopaedic article will last for the long term, and that is true knowledge. That is why Wikimedia is considered Wikipedia. It runs on a charitable basis and people believe in it as a global programme. It is a magnitude larger than any of the sites you have talked about. It is the sixth largest website on the planet, and that is why it appears so high when you search for these topics.
Q572 Ms Stuart: Just before you get away with this notion that you are so pure and don’t take any money, currently if I go on Wikipedia somebody’s face flashes up—I am so ignorant I can’t remember who the guy is—and his charity, so he is taking money from somebody.
Ashley Van Haeften: There are several faces. There is the famous Jimmy Wales; certainly he has a Wikipedia article. We are currently fundraising.
Q573 Ms Stuart: But you have to live off something, don’t you?
Ashley Van Haeften: Yes, we are currently in a fundraiser cycle that lasts for something like 50 days. We do not have any banners for the rest of the year, and that is how we raise all the money we need to run.
Q574 Ms Stuart: So because you just do it for 50 days of the year rather than longer, you are purer than the others.
Ashley Van Haeften: We are, yes. Ms Stuart: That is fine by me; it is an interesting notion.
Ashley Van Haeften: This is purely for open knowledge; it is not advertising anybody else. It is saying: if you are interested in a free and open resource like this, you can chip in your dollar to keep it going.
Q575 Yasmin Qureshi: Can I just ask something? You say Wikipedia is sort of purer than pure. But if somebody does not want to be on Wikipedia, they do not want information about them on it, can they stop it from being published?
Ashley Van Haeften: I think it is worth explaining that there are a range of things that you can do, and I think that is a very good model that can be thought of in a different context. In the first instance you can edit it yourself—it is open. You can go in and you can edit it anonymously. If it is wrong—if your birth date is wrong on there—you can go and edit it. You can discuss it on a talk page that discusses improvements to articles. We have helpdesks and notice boards specific to that. We also have administrators. I am an administrator; I can help you out in fixing an article if there is a dispute going on. You can also email. We have a system for confidential emails. So there is quite a chain of things that you can do before you might seek legal recourse, and that is part of why it works so well and why it is so well trusted. For those people that have a problem and say, “The article about me is wrong—my birthday is wrong”, it is fairly obvious how to go about it. You can always send us an email and ask for help, and that works very well. It is all run by volunteers, so I do that as a volunteer rather than a paid person.
Q576 Yasmin Qureshi: That simple, factual stuff like the birthday is alright. But there is other stuff that is written on Wikipedia about people that can be a bit suspect because of the way it is slanted, or the way it is put, or it omits a very relevant piece of information that could explain why something happened. From what I have heard from people who have tried to deal with it, they have been very disappointed because they have not found the offending information removed. They have made an amendment, then somebody comes in and blanks them out and then puts something else on. It seems the sort of action that an individual can take regarding their Wikipedia entry is not so straightforward.
Ashley Van Haeften: The problem is reaching consensus on the changes. So you may believe that you can write about yourself with a fairly independent view; other members of the public may disagree with you and think it is an unfair representation. So it is a question of how you then reach that community consensus, and the information you want to add, for instance, correcting your birth date, still needs a source for it. Of course if the sources are conflicting, that is another discussion to have.
Q577 Yasmin Qureshi: The source? Do you have to show your birth certificate?
Ashley Van Haeften: Maybe, if you can produce it. If someone can be bothered to go and look it up.
Q578 Yasmin Qureshi: How do you do that?
Ashley Van Haeften: It depends whether it is notable or not. Normally there are enough sources to find that sort of thing fairly easily. It comes up a lot with birth dates of actors. Yasmin Qureshi: I am not really concerned about my birth certificate.
Q580 […] Professor Murray: I would like to see people who address the largest audiences be held responsible for the audiences they reach, which means I think that bloggers of a certain scale should be brought within the same regulatory regime as press, television and radio publishers. I think responsibility for any kind of incitement or nudge-and-wink-style reporting should be laid squarely at the door of newspaper editors and newspaper publishers. They should be held responsible for inciting others to breach injunctions via social media and other means.
Ashley Van Haeften: I would encourage thinking more about the reputation of where people would go to on the internet to find their information. Wikipedia—what was the phrase, “Purer than pure”—has that reputation because of a strong editorial policy. So your reputation should be tied into neutrality, and respect and civility is part of why people use our website and why it is number six in the world for people to visit.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 7th December 2011, 6:39pm

[mbz1]

The transcript of Van Haeften's evidence is now available. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-c...PI281111ev7.pdf

I have copied it below. I have written to some members of the committee explaining in detail, and with examples, of why I think his evidence is grossly misleading.

Ashley Van Haeften: I would encourage thinking more about the reputation of where people would go to on the internet to find their information. Wikipedia—what was the phrase, “Purer than pure”

Is this what "purer than pure" means?

[thekohser]

People trust the brand that Wikipedia has...

-- Ashley Van Hogtie

Oh, Ash... you make this too easy. Is this the sort of brand trust you're talking about?

[mbz1]

People trust the brand that Wikipedia has...

-- Ashley Van Hogtie

Oh, Ash... you make this too easy. Is this the sort of brand trust you're talking about?

This video reminded to me This appeal for donations

I'm a university student. Textbooks for one semester cost me $500. On Wikipedia, I get thousands of books' worth of information for free.

Would you hire an attorney who got his education without using textbooks, only from wikipedia.
Would you go to a doctor who got his education without textbooks, only from wikipedia.
Not only wikipedia, but any encyclopedia for that matter cannot replace textbooks.
It not like you donate $20 to wikipedia and save hundreds of dollars on your textbooks.
Then why to use this misleading comparison between $500 worth of textbooks and wikipedia free articles?

This post has been edited by mbz1: Wed 7th December 2011, 9:28pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464931087

Note: Yes, that's a WR link. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK|<nowiki>[</nowikI>•<nowiki>]</nowiki>]] 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is how AGK defends himself against my statement against him.

[Peter Damian]

Reviving the original thread. There are many questions here. Some quotes below. It is clear that Arbcom merely approved the name change, rather than the 'clean start' itself, of which John Vandenberg was the sole arbiter.

Vandenberg made the judgment that this was a clean start, without giving the community any information as to the nature of the original RfC, where Fae (as user:Ash) had been incriminated of misrepresenting sources, BLP violations galore, promoting links to commercial pornsites etc etc.

The question is as below: had the 'community' known the precise details of Fae's history at the RfA, would they have supported the RfA?

------------From the March 2011 RfA--------

For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Wikipedia editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked. Prior to this nomination I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors to the discussion, who knows both account names and we have resolved our concerns. I will recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion. This is the first time I have had an RFA nomination. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/F%C3%A6

I can confirm that Fæ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics (not me,fwiw), letting them know both old and new account names. Fæ has also informed Arbcom of the prior account name. I have looked over the contributions of old and new account names, and can also confirm that Fæ has refocused, in many ways. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs.[1] The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.

Answering "What was the focus of the old contributions" will also simplify determining the old account name. However, I can answer "Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account. It was too narrow for an admin candidate, but Fae has since broadened their focus. The reasonable !voter would be concerned about the specific issues raised at the old RfC/U, if the RfC/U been recent and there wasn't much evidence that the previous concerns have been resolved; the reasonable voter would have be voting 'great contributor, but not right now' and 'maybe next year' had the concerns about Fae been recent.

However the RfC/U is not recent, and the reasonable voter now has 50,000 edits to survey in an effort to work out if there are any issues. I consider the 'former critic' mentioned above to be a tough !voter at RfA, especially when they are concerned about something.

Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history. In both scenarios, respected members of our project would feel the need to oppose in order to protect the project from the unknowable: will the prior concerns re-emerge. To that, all I can say is that the people who know the prior concerns don't think it is probable, and are not the sort of people who will sit by quietly if it ever eventuates. And Fæ knows this. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/F%C3%A6

With all due respect, John, this is increasingly disturbing. From what you are saying, had the material that has been hidden from the !voters been disclosed to them, "no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history" This is shocking. Your comment that "I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now" misses the point -- if they were equal to the number of opposers, then this nomination would not (at this point) pass. And btw, it is irrelevant that you and an editor who brought an RFC against the candidate do not oppose him (thought I note you do not say that that editor "supported" the candidate here -- could that be because of the prior history, that he saw but that other supporters did not see?). The other !voters here deserve to be aware of the same information that you two had access to, and to make their own "informed" decisions. Otherwise, their !votes are severely flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 2011-03-19T20:37:15

In July 2011 there was an admin conduct review requested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...eview_requested july 2011 .

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 29th December 2011, 11:39pm

[Peter Damian]

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...er:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

[carbuncle]

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...er:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

[melloden]

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...er:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

Try this.

[SB_Johnny]

Can someone with oversight privileges get me a copy of the page referred to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mis...er:Ash/analysis please?

I am trying to get to the bottom of why Ash/Haeften claimed homophobia and discrimination etc. Carbuncle, did you keep a copy?

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

Try this.

Yup, it was moved to there, not deleted.

[Peter Damian]

Thanks

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is crucial. Was there any genuine harassment, or was the 'clean start' a way of evading scrutiny by an editor who wanted to become an admin, and clearly saw that his current track record would severely obstruct that ambition.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 30th December 2011, 4:45pm

[carbuncle]

Thanks

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is crucial. Was there any genuine harassment, or was the 'clean start' a way of evading scrutiny by an editor who wanted to become an admin, and clearly saw that his current track record would severely obstruct that ambition.

I am probably not the best person to comment on whether or not that page shows that I am harassing Ash, but I have started a new thread which includes a relevant email sent to me by Ash not long after.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Fri 30th December 2011, 7:31pm

[Tarc]

I do not seem to have a copy of that page, but I likely wouldn't have bothered. If I recall it was an effort to make me look like a homophobe because I asked for unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers to be deleted.

This is the oldest tactic in the wiki-book for trying to do away with one's opponents; frame their opposition to your opinions in the context of some prejudice.

You oppose unref'ed BLPs of gay porn actors? Ash claims you are motivated by homophobia.

I oppose the removal of images from the Muhammad article? Ludwigs claims I am motivated by anti-Islamic sentiment.

It never ends.