You might want to discuss this topic at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam
This page is watched by many people working against UPE in various projects. Many are familiar with large-scale UPE operations. Some of us already work with tools for automated and semi-automated detection. So it might be more fruitful to discuss it with contributors experienced in that area. Best, Mario On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:22 PM Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steven :) Good points. I agree with Adam that this is a major energy > and enthusiasm drain for eitors. > > As to how we could start with data collection: > > * Monitor the market. > a) Work with groups that are in the market and completely transparent > about their work to maintain a sense of rates and volume > b) Search general contracting sites, general search engines, and > specific reputation brokers for new options; maintain a catalog > c) Spot-check and commission work. As with Böhmermann > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_B%C3%B6hmermann>'s show - he spent > under 500 Euros and identified two networks of UPE. > > * Build better tools for tracking and countering undisclosed paid editing > a) Tracking: automated scoring, as with ORES > b) Countering: As you say: tools to help people coordinate work, making > it more fun and collaborative to take on UPE. Especially for often-targeted > categories -- politicians + companies.. > b) Both: Focus on tools for detecting large farms over time, and > cleaning up the mess left by a farm. > > You're right about community size being a defense. But only for a time -- > the growing demand for this actively subverts community members. Olaf was > one! So we also need to think of ways to reduce and divert that demand > into constructive channels. > > SJ > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:11 PM Steven Walling <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Given that it’s completely trivial to make new pseudonymous accounts how >> would you propose even remotely accurate data collection to measure paid >> editing? >> >> If we are worried about the impact of paid editors on the integrity of >> content, we are much better served investing even more in efforts to >> dramatically strengthen our volunteer community’s ability to defend the >> projects. That means better software to help each editor do more, making it >> fun, easy and welcoming for new contributors, and fighting the attrition in >> admins and other functionaries. If our volunteer community was larger and >> healthier, the threat of paid interference would be less scary. >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:20 PM Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Aha -- I was pointed to en:wp's List of paid editing companies >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_paid_editing_companies>. >>> (thanks!) This is a great resource and deserves to be better linked. The >>> page is semi-active - 4 additions in the last month, including the Olaf >>> case. I've cleaned it up a bit and linked it to the German page. This >>> really needs some automated scripting and tracking, at the scale of ORES... >>> >>> Is there any routine analysis / stats compiled of edits associated with >>> these orgs, or of their activity online? >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jan Böhmermann <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_B%C3%B6hmermann> >>>> published an amazing expose on political WP editing in Germany; it gets >>>> good around 15 minutes in >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNsTaKwyAzI&t=900s>. In the video he >>>> exposed the workings of a paid editing farm run (by Olaf Kosinsky ( >>>> Wikidata <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30108329>; CheckUser >>>> discussion >>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Umgang_mit_bezahltem_Schreiben/Verdachtsf%C3%A4lle/Olaf_Kosinsky> >>>> ; archived PR-services site >>>> <https://web.archive.org/web/20210416110100/https://kosinsky.eu/>), an >>>> excellent long-time editor with over 3 million edits. >>>> >>>> *We need to distinguish paid editing from general COI editing*. Paid >>>> editing is COI editing by professionals, who have strong external >>>> incentives to persist, no leeway in the outcome they are aiming >>>> for, experience in doing this in dozens of cases, and may have colleagues >>>> who can drop in as 'uninvolved' editors to forge consensus or social >>>> proof.[1] >>>> >>>> This is one of our great recurring challenges, siphoning off both our >>>> reputation and our community. There are many things we can do about paid >>>> editing, starting with maintaining *paid-editing metrics and a >>>> dashboard* of known and estimated paid editing. We can estimate its >>>> prevalence by the availabiity of services online[2]; and look for patterns >>>> of such editing on wiki. Even with large error margins, this would be a >>>> step above simply waiting for outbreaks to be discovered and reacting to >>>> the visible bits of the iceberg. >>>> >>>> What sort of metrics like this do we have already? Who is working on >>>> such things? >>>> Since the above video came out, de:wp started a table of WP editing >>>> services >>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Umgang_mit_bezahltem_Schreiben/F%C3%A4lle#Wikipedia-Web-Agenturen_auf_dem_Markt>. >>>> It currently includes an initial dozen examples, with no estimate of >>>> activity (the 1 account known to be associated with each is in most cases >>>> blocked; but most have active websites soliciting work) This would be >>>> useful in all languages. >>>> >>>> SJ >>>> >>>> [1] as Melmann wrote >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_167#Limiting_the_scope_of_COI_edit_requests> >>>> recently: >>>> "*in my experience, **all the most difficult edits are WP:PAID >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAID>**. Most non-paid COI >>>> comes from a place of desire to make things better, and often can be >>>> relatively easily guided towards a better place... [or] it is relatively >>>> easy to use existing enforcement mechanisms to to correct and ultimately >>>> control their behaviours. PR professionals, on the other hand, are subtle >>>> and sometimes downright deceptive, and it takes lots of effort to check >>>> their edits when most of the time you lack context and expertise and you >>>> really have to research in depth to see their edits for what they really >>>> are. I think that one of the fundamental mistakes of the current policy is >>>> lumping paid editors with general COI editing as paid editors are >>>> fundamentally playing on a different level in terms of PR expertise and >>>> incentives*" >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/Q5MNSKMA45ZDH2IYQDWHPXQ7C6WEIQQA/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/OB232G2K4B23Q3ZJJIHLBKF6W2XQAL72/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
