Research talk:Newsletter/2017/February
See also the comments section of the blog version
Pre-publication discussion (copied over from here):
Re. Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press - but are they real?[edit]
Please indicate your affiliations and if there is any conflict of interests, also please remove personal comments such as "It's too bad that Dr. Yasseri hadn't looked ...", this is pure speculation. Limit your comments to the work and what is documented or quoted directly. Preceding comment posted by Adler.fa (talk) @ 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the above comment here from the content page. Please use the talk page to have a discussion. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Dr. Yasseri, I'm sorry to give your paper a poor review. I hope you won't hold it against me. I've added my real name and I've added "appears to" to the sentence you've challenged so that I don't come off as speculating about what you have or have not considered. If you feel like I have a conflict of interest, please do share it with me because I don't know what you're talking about. I've accepted no payments from bots or any bot developers. I regularly publish critiques of Wikipedian practices -- most notably, how bots and automation have been involved in some of the most serious problems facing the project. My employer (The Wikimedia Foundation) does not run any bots and we do not compete with your institution to obtain funding or other resources. If you think I've given your work an unfair review, I welcome you to explain what exactly you meant by "conflict" or "fight" and how bots cleaning up redirects and interwiki links corresponds to those concepts. I'd also be very curious to know why it is that you said that bot operators lack central supervision and formal coordination mechanisms. I've invited you to comment on these issues publicly before and you have refused. I'm hoping that your posting on my review is a sign that you're now willing to engage with these questions and defend the conclusions of your study. I'd be very interested in changing my review if you could provide me with an insight I might be lacking. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- You're not paid by bots (haha, funny!), but you're paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's natural that you feel insecure due to our criticisms against Wikipedia, and it's fine that you express your opinion. But You also need to disclose the fact that you have received payments from Wikimedia. It's the right of the public and the donors to know this. Adler.fa (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Adler.fa, I'm one of Wikipedia's most vocal critics. I have been for years. See m:R:The Rise and Decline. I suggest you check yourself and consider not presuming my motives. My relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation is well documented. The Wikimedia Foundation does not run bots. We do not run the bot governance systems either. I feel like you're reaching at explanations for why your paper is receiving negative attention. Maybe you should look at the quality of your work rather than the qualities of your reviewers. --Halfak (WMF) (talk)
- An additional note for posterity. I'm EpochFail, when working in a volunteer capacity. Here, I've been called out as a staff member, hence I'm posting under my staff account. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're not paid by bots (haha, funny!), but you're paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's natural that you feel insecure due to our criticisms against Wikipedia, and it's fine that you express your opinion. But You also need to disclose the fact that you have received payments from Wikimedia. It's the right of the public and the donors to know this. Adler.fa (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)