User talk:Durova/The dark side

Comment[edit]

This is best Wikipedia essay I've read in a while. Very eloquent. Nice work, Durova.--ragesoss 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay, Durova, and a pleasure to read as well. — Athænara ✉ 04:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled upon this... it is positively awesome, so pardon my comment spam of approval. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to fix?[edit]

"And hello there, I'm a Wikipedia administrator." This be no longer correct since you have resigned. Proposed "ex-administrator"? 79.182.156.176 (talk) -Ori —Preceding comment was added at 09:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions[edit]

I liked it too. Might want to put in a bit on WP:COI to help turn a few who read it, get 'em hip the policy. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've added it. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are a small problem in your essay, nowhere in it can on find the information to build upon. All i see is a large warningsign that in essense says "Don't do this!" When im using an encyclopedia i try to find information to build upon. I seek to find the do's and the dont's, this is so i can build my self an own judgment of what life is abaout. All your essay is giving me is the dont's, and i feel this make it lack something essential.

-Yes, by giving me the information that i seek, you will make your own work so much harder. But out of hardship one can find knowledge (Swedish proverb)

(My apologies for my lack of knowledge in the english language) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.176.154 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This essay was designed to fill in the gaps left by some other very good Wikipedians who had written that kind of positive information. I also write a column for Search Engine Land that explains opportunities that are compliant with site standards. Durova^Charge! 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course the information that i seek now is somewhere else to be found. The trouble as i see it is that you tried to give me a hint of what the truth was. This by publishing your essay. But i am a inpacient man, now is the time i want to know the answer. Now is the time i hope somebody will give me the answer. (It hasn't happend to this date i would like to add...) This is what your essay is lacking, the hint of what is truth, whatever that may be.

With friendly regards, Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.176.154 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balance[edit]

I film people cooking. Regular people. Professional chefs. Anyone who's got something to cook, I film it. What has emerged is a unique and rapidly growing collection of 3-5 minute video recipes - part cooking show, part reality tv, part documentary. It's comprehensive and pretty unique. The ultimate value is that these recipes will be recorded, tied to these chefs, and shared in perpetuity. I post these videos on a web site called realmeals.tv, which is a pretty new site. Two weeks ago I went out and filmed a 75 year old Jewish grandmother & holocaust survivor sharing her matzah ball soup, gefilte fish and other passover recipes. I had used wikipedia to decide how I was going to spell gefilte and matzah on realmeals, and after the films were edited I decided to post links to the videos in the wikipedia pages I'd consulted. I thought that a video recipe could be really useful for people who want to know how to make matzah balls, etc. (not to mention, these recipes are total mysteries for lots of Jews of the younger generation). Some people did find the links useful. There were a few hundred clicks to the recipes from wikipedia in the two or three days they were up. Cool, I thought. Not earth shattering numbers or anything, but clearly people found these videos helpful. I see people post recipes in the food related articles all the time. I thought readers would appreciate the opportunity to actually watch stuff being made, instead of just reading about it and looking at pictures. So I posted a few more links. My wife's leg of lamb. My buddy's ridiculously good flank steak. A kid from Jersey City making beer can chicken (very cool dish) and an amazing chef in NYC making gnocchi from scratch. All stuff that really is best communicated in short videos.

Within minutes all the links I'd posted, including the passover recipes, had been deleted.

Now, was I promoting realmeals? Sure, I guess, though frankly I had though of it more in terms of "giving back" to the community. I didn't think the links would generate big traffic and I wasn't promoting realmeals directly. My posts didn't say, "visit realmeals and watch someone cook beer can chicken!" Though I have seen plenty posts in food entries that do just that, directing people to big business food sites. The links I posted said, "Watch someone prepare and cook beer can chicken." My assumption was that if someone was interested in that kind of information, presented in that way, they'd click the link. The links aren't intended to promote realmeals -- they're intended to inform people who might be interested in the content... and frankly to help create a fuller and more informative entry. I know that the guidelines say:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

I will in the future request that my links be allowing in the talk page, but I don't know how that works, what I can expect in terms of debate, and who gets to be the ultimate arbiter... Frankly, I'm willing to bet that if you're interested in making gnocchi, the video in question would be potentially the most valuable resource on that page.

So, my concern is about balance. The language in the guidelines says that we "should avoid" linking to sites we're associated with. So it sounds to me like its not an absolute rule. If I'd discovered a cure for cancer, wouldn't it make sense to post it and then let the community decide it was any good? Isn't that how this works? Now my gnocchi film isn't as important as a cure for cancer, though for Italian food lovers it's close -- but I do think that it would definitely prove to be valuable to anyone who types gnocchi into the search field. At what point does the value of the content outweigh the appearance of a conflict of interest in the source? Because in this case, the interests are not conflicted -- they are in alignment. And in this environment should the source even really matter? Because ultimately, if the content is no good, irrelevant, or otherwise undesirable, the community will remove it, right?

Thank you for entertaining my rant. I think it's a shame that all the links (even the passover ones) have been deleted, but I appreciate all the work people put into this amazing and invaluable web site. For now, I won't post any more links to realmeals without putting it in the discussion channel first. Though others hopefully will... ;-)

OK - gotta go finish editing the make your own wedding cake video now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efproductions (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a polite and detailed message. It looks as if you've got quite a project going. Recipes in general fall outside the scope of Wikipedia and belong at Wikibooks, a sister project. I suggest you post a query there about whether and how to incorporate your content there. Another sister project, Wikimedia Commons, might house your video if you choose to release it under GDFL licensure. Again, raise queries there. Best wishes and happy Pesach, Durova^Charge! 06:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith[edit]

Nice essay :-)

Most of the stuff people do bad is in good faith. Edits that you or I might think "ridiculous conflict of interest"; external links to their own lovely sites; "the truth" rather than NPOV; etc.

Most of this is just not getting it, and a simple word of explanation is probably the best first move. You may wish to put this at the top of the essay; without it, the rest will be taken by ~~idjits~~ the unenculturated n00b as background from which to assume bad faith.

Also (not sure of relevance): every obvious criticism anyone's ever had of Wikipedia, and of wikis in general, is in fact true and happens all the time - we've just learnt to deal with it in the normal course of things.

This essay could also be thought of as "Why not to be a dick" - David Gerard 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it to complement other pieces at WP:COI#Further_reading. Durova^Charge! 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals[edit]

Great essay! Here is something you might use. Larry Sanger's advice needs to be applied with firmness:

"show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." [1]

-- Fyslee/talk 13:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one's fine at WP:DE. I did slip in a quote from Benjamin Franklin. :) Durova^Charge! 04:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my blog[edit]

Hi Durova -- I found your response on my blog makes your point even more clearly than your essay. (Perhaps because you haven't stopped thinking about this topic?) I hope you add it to your essay -- but if you don't, here it is for everyone else to read (with one small change by me):

I wrote very little about specific methods of disruption there because of a consistent dynamic: if the wrong kind of person becomes aware of Exploit X and it's flaws, he or she will go off and attempt Exploit Y - regardless of how many other people already stumbled at Exploit Y before. Then when the disruptive type figures out the flaws of Exploit Y he or she trods the well-worn road to Exploit Z while supposing this amounts to bushwhacking a new trail.

All the obvious exploitation methods have already been tried. The seductive thing about them is that sometimes they seem to work just long enough to become major embarrassments for their perpetrators if and when they become generally known - and people who attempt to manipulate the site create a perilous situation for themselves because the trail of evidence is already public information.

FWIW, I'd take the words "if and" out of the second paragraph; it makes your point all the more strongly. -- llywrch 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and after I posted I realized I'd misused an apostrophe (shame on me - I've just started WikiProject Classroom coordination). I'll chew on this a little and incorporate it into the essay. Your commentary was not only flattering but insightful. Give yourself some credit if the new paragraphs are an improvement. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 23:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I submitted a version of a key passage of what you wrote above as Durova's 15th law. Hope I didn't mangle your words too badly. -- llywrch 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the chuckle, fine work. I've been writing too many laws on Raul's page. Now I can't stop... ;) Durova^Charge! 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but…[edit]

I believe that the practical effect of this essay is to throw down a gauntlet. —SlamDiego 04:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gauntlet has already been thrown by certain PR professionals. This site needed a response because, quite frankly, it doesn't serve anyone's best interests when these situations explode. If there's any gauntlet to be thrown, the one I'd toss is to the journalists who report on this site. The Sinbad thing didn't merit coverage: all it demonstrated was that some reporters don't recognize a historical page version when they see it. Sooner or later they're going to realize how Wikipedia actually operates and the first journalist to make that discovery will probably become famous. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent essay[edit]

The recent signpost article should perhaps also be included into this excellent piece, since it directly relates to the advice given here. nadav (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, absolutely. I don't want to start trouble, but am I the only one who thinks its ultimate home will be in the Project namespace? — Athaenara ✉ 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll put it in. Durova^Charge! 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't quite make sense.[edit]

"I hope people who are on the edge turn around and edit productively, but I've come to the conclusion that most of the people who abuse this site are the ones who are naive."

But how does their naïvete prevent them from being able to turn around? That's what this seems to imply. mike4ty4 08:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the naive belief they've outsmarted regular Wikipedia volunteers that keeps them from turning around. Per WP:BEANS we keep silent about specific exploitive methods, so those people naively think they're steps ahead of us when really all they're doing is embarrassing themselves further. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for the "cautionary tales" section[edit]

Chris Benoit#Wikipedia controversy. --cesarb 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about how to add that and still wrapping my head around the matter. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that this incident would be an almost essential item to bring up in your essay (which I now link to from my user page), because the guy who posted it ended up having his computer confiscated even and it shows a real world example of just how much trouble one can get into for vandalism. Plus, it made national news and was even the headline story on FoxNews's website for a time. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dig a little further than the Signpost story and maybe you'll see what I mean: I think the fellow was very lucky. E-mail me and I'll explain why. And do you have a source for the computer confiscation? Durova^Charge! 10:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Chris Benoit Case: Police Seize Computer Of Wikipedia Culprit. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thanks; it's done. BTW would you be interested in trying your hand at some investigations work? Durova^Charge! 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; whatever I can do to redeem myself from last year is probably a good thing. By the way, you may also want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unsettling_edits_from_anonymous_IP for another potential cautionary tale. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how about Fuzzy Zoeller[edit]

How about Fuzzy Zoeller the golfer who sued for libel over a wikipedia edit. Smartyshoe 13:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]