This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
End moved discussion. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) @ Ipigott and Dr. Blofeld, returning to the question of categorizing OKA articles, one way to track them would be to add the WP Intertranswiki talkpage template to all the articles and templates (and drafts?) created by OKA editors. The on-wiki list is here; this is a list of {{ OKA}}-templated articles so it may be incomplete if some articles created by OKA-editors aren't OKA-templated. OKA also maintains an off-wiki list, which may be different. If you think it's a good idea to add the WikiProject Intertranswiki talkpage template (I couldn't find one but I assume there is one), I'd want to get Ser Amantio di Nicolao opinion on the matter, (a) because of the quantity (almost 2,000 articles/templates), as well as (b) his availability to do the needful. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding MSGJ to the conversation as they helped us modernize the Women in Red talkpage template. Old style example: Talk:Aurélie Neyret; new style example: Talk:Marietta Sherman Raymond. Martin, maybe you have some thoughts on how to categorize OKA articles on-wiki. The tracker that 7804j refers to is fine for their business model but as it's a ggl doc and off-wiki, it doesn't solve on-wiki tracking. If I misunderstand the tracker, hoping someone can clarify. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) The scope of WikiProject Intertranswiki is translation of articles from some language Wikipedia into EN-WP. The scope of OKA appears to be translation of articles from some language Wikipedia into EN-WP and getting paid for it. 7804j, would you please confirm or clarify? Ergo, I've been thinking of OKA as a "task force" of WikiProject Intertranswiki but it would probably be more appropriate for OKA to be its own WikiProject. This would be useful for tracking (e.g., "hidden category") and talkpage discussions, e.g., a particular OKA-article, a particular OKA-editor, OKA-editor editing trends, paid-editing specifically related to OKA, etc. Examples of conversations on two now-blocked OKA-editor talkpages that could more fully be discussed on the WikiProject OKA talkpage:
"I want to delete this page because I was scammed by OKA. They never paid me!!!"
"The group that arranges your paid editing emphasizes increasing traffic to targeted pages."
As OKA-article talkpages already have the OKA-template, the next steps would include creation of WikiProject OKA, and enhancement of the OKA-template with the appropriate WikiProject-talkpage parameters. Is this the right direction, or something else? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
* On-wiki list of OKA articles: here * Off-wiki (ggl doc) list of OKA articles: here * On-wiki list of OKA editors: here
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
Hi everyone (and in particular @ Ipigott @ Mathglot @ Rosiestep @ Ser Amantio di Nicolao @ Dr. Blofeld since you were involved in previous discussions related to OKA),
It was recently raised on my talk page that it is not allowed for OKA translators to create new articles, as they are technically paid editors ( WP:COI says that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly").
This is quite unfortunate since, unlike almost all other paid editors, we only distribute grants as a non-profit without directing our translators to specific content. Also, our translators only receive a small "cost of living" stipend of less than 450 USD per month when they work full-time (usually a lot less than that since most of our translators do this as a side activity). In that sense, our translators are more like grant recipients than really paid editors, but as far as I know there is no such exception in the current wording of the policy.
I haven't used the AFC process in the past, but my impression is that it is not the most efficient part of Wikipedia, with currently >2000 articles in the backlog, many from several months ago. OKA creates several thousand new articles per year (99% of which are translations), so I have concerns that if all of these were to go through AFC, it would completely clog the process and makes us unable to operate. We will test it but, given the circumstances, there is a real risk we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages with less stringent paid editing policies.
Before doing this, I wanted to get your view on two points:
1) Do you see any path for requesting a simplification of the current policy? Requiring that every OKA article be submitted through AFC does not seem to benefit anyone, as it will (at best) reduce the productivity of both our translators and consume time from the volunteers reviewing the AFC list or (at worst) lead us to drop out of EN Wiki entirely
2) In case (1) is not possible and we need to go for the AFC route, would you be able to assist us in clearing the backlog from the OKA translations?
Thanks a lot for your advice!
7804j ( talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm still on the learning curve here, but it seems like OKA-paid editors are not in the same class as what Wikipedia has heretofore considered pretty much an axiomatic equivalence between being paid on the one hand, and having a conflict of interest on the other, because it doesn't take into account philanthropy as a motive. If the OKA members can translate whatever articles they want, and are not vetted on the content of their translation by OKA, then I don't see where the conflict is. Maybe one thing that might help, is if OKA would forswear any articles on topics labeled as controversial on the Talk page, or might reasonably be considered controversial, that might help a bit. But getting back to conflict of interest: the meaning of the term is that there might be some undue advantage incurred by someone or some entity by dint of an editor being paid or in an official position of responsibility. But exactly who benefits ilicitly from translations of:
(those are just the first few entries at Special:WhatLinksHere for Template:OKA). If there is no prospect of anyone benefiting, then in my view, there can be no conflict of interest, regardless of pay. It may be that the unstated axiomatic equivalence principle needs to be reviewed, as it seems aimed (understandably, for historic reasons) solely at actors with self-interested motivation, without taking into account the possibility of actors with purely philanthropic motivation. We may need to consider that possibility now. Do we prohibit donors to Wikimedia or wmf employees from creating new articles here of their choice? I don't think so. Is that not an equivalent conflict of interest? (Yes, it seems equivalent to me, and no, it's not a conflict of interest when donors write articles, because there is no monitoring of what they do.) Maybe we need a new shortcut: WP:DONTBITETHEDONORS. The only ones I see benefiting from these additional (paid) translations for the most part, are readers of Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 09:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
All of our articles would pass the AfC criteria.is often not the best idea. That one certainly wouldn't, and shouldn't, have passed. The one I deleted as G11/advertising from the editor I earlier discussed certainly wouldn't and shouldn't have passed either. So, that again reinforces my view that I don't trust your judgment in that, and they need to go through review by non-conflicted, non-paid editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) I have just discovered that several of the high quality translations by OKA editors which I moved to mainspace have been deleted on the basis of R2 which I simply do not understand. I have asked Liz for explanations on User talk:Shellypls so that we can resolve any problems. Perhaps Rosiestep can help with this. Otherwise it looks as if many OKA creations will simply remain as drafts.-- Ipigott ( talk) 13:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone (and @ Rosiestep @ Ipigott, @ Mathglot),
In case you are interested, I just wanted to flag that a discussion was initiated in the Village pump regarding whether an exception to the AfC requirement for OKA.
7804j ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Following the suggestion of another editor, I have created a page for OKA at meta.wikimedia.org. I also in the process of wikifying our instructions to translators, so that all the documentation is available in-wiki. I believe that meta.wikimedia is a more suitable space for topics related to OKA, as OKA is active across multiple Wikipedia (EN, PT, ES). To avoid duplication, I was thinking of redirecting the existing pages on WikiProject Intertranswiki to the new home, but also happy to keep a presence here if you feel it is useful. 7804j ( talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The original {{ OKA}} template has been replaced, and is now a redirect. The new one uses standard Module:WikiProject banner which is used by most WikiProjects to facilitate various operations, including auto-categorization. To see an example of the new template in use, see Talk:Ancient Regime of Spain.
Auto-categorization has already been initiated by the bot associated with this process, and the results can be seen in main category Articles translated by an OKA editor. Other categories exists for tracking and other purposes. As articles are assessed for quality, they will start to populate the quality-scale categories, which are listed at Category:OKA articles by quality. This change should be completely transparent; there is no reason afaik to give OKA editors any special notification of this change—they can keep doing what they were doing before, and keep using template redirect {{ OKA}} which is shorter and easier to type than the full, wikiproject template name.
I am not an expert on quality assessment, and there are some aspects of the quality assessment feature of the module that I believe involve a bot that can do auto-assessment for quality. I don't know how that all happens, but the new template is highly configurable, and if we want to change how categorization is done (or if it is done at all) that should all be doable using the extensive module parameter set. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the § How to help section that said:
OKA editors are instructed to... delete the draft talk once the article is in the mainspace
I have deleted the part after the ellipsis. Talk page discussions should not be deleted (except for vandalism, personal attacks, and a few other reasons). Talk discussions may be (do not have to be) archived, but OKA editors need not be concerned with that; they already have enough on their plate. If this derives from external instructions given to OKA editors, please remove it from those instructions as well, at least as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. Mathglot ( talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the § How to help section that says:
OKA editors are instructed to add the {{ OKA}} template to the talk page of their drafts only once these are submitted for AfC...
In my opinion, editors should be instructed to add the {{ OKA}} template to the Talk page immediately after their first edit creating the page. This will aid transparency, categorization, collaboration, and improve the chances that other editors will find the Draft and drop by to help. If there is a good reason not to use the template right away, I'm willing to be persuaded, but I only see downsides to that and no advantages. Am I missing something? Mathglot ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Following the addition of quality categories as described above, a new section, § Status summary, has been added to the project page, in the form of a table summarizing the number of articles assigned to each quality category. Feedback, bug reports, and enhancement requests welcome. Note: this is unrelated to the ongoing test described in the section above. Mathglot ( talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
End moved discussion. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) @ Ipigott and Dr. Blofeld, returning to the question of categorizing OKA articles, one way to track them would be to add the WP Intertranswiki talkpage template to all the articles and templates (and drafts?) created by OKA editors. The on-wiki list is here; this is a list of {{ OKA}}-templated articles so it may be incomplete if some articles created by OKA-editors aren't OKA-templated. OKA also maintains an off-wiki list, which may be different. If you think it's a good idea to add the WikiProject Intertranswiki talkpage template (I couldn't find one but I assume there is one), I'd want to get Ser Amantio di Nicolao opinion on the matter, (a) because of the quantity (almost 2,000 articles/templates), as well as (b) his availability to do the needful. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Adding MSGJ to the conversation as they helped us modernize the Women in Red talkpage template. Old style example: Talk:Aurélie Neyret; new style example: Talk:Marietta Sherman Raymond. Martin, maybe you have some thoughts on how to categorize OKA articles on-wiki. The tracker that 7804j refers to is fine for their business model but as it's a ggl doc and off-wiki, it doesn't solve on-wiki tracking. If I misunderstand the tracker, hoping someone can clarify. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) The scope of WikiProject Intertranswiki is translation of articles from some language Wikipedia into EN-WP. The scope of OKA appears to be translation of articles from some language Wikipedia into EN-WP and getting paid for it. 7804j, would you please confirm or clarify? Ergo, I've been thinking of OKA as a "task force" of WikiProject Intertranswiki but it would probably be more appropriate for OKA to be its own WikiProject. This would be useful for tracking (e.g., "hidden category") and talkpage discussions, e.g., a particular OKA-article, a particular OKA-editor, OKA-editor editing trends, paid-editing specifically related to OKA, etc. Examples of conversations on two now-blocked OKA-editor talkpages that could more fully be discussed on the WikiProject OKA talkpage:
"I want to delete this page because I was scammed by OKA. They never paid me!!!"
"The group that arranges your paid editing emphasizes increasing traffic to targeted pages."
As OKA-article talkpages already have the OKA-template, the next steps would include creation of WikiProject OKA, and enhancement of the OKA-template with the appropriate WikiProject-talkpage parameters. Is this the right direction, or something else? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
* On-wiki list of OKA articles: here * Off-wiki (ggl doc) list of OKA articles: here * On-wiki list of OKA editors: here
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
Hi everyone (and in particular @ Ipigott @ Mathglot @ Rosiestep @ Ser Amantio di Nicolao @ Dr. Blofeld since you were involved in previous discussions related to OKA),
It was recently raised on my talk page that it is not allowed for OKA translators to create new articles, as they are technically paid editors ( WP:COI says that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly").
This is quite unfortunate since, unlike almost all other paid editors, we only distribute grants as a non-profit without directing our translators to specific content. Also, our translators only receive a small "cost of living" stipend of less than 450 USD per month when they work full-time (usually a lot less than that since most of our translators do this as a side activity). In that sense, our translators are more like grant recipients than really paid editors, but as far as I know there is no such exception in the current wording of the policy.
I haven't used the AFC process in the past, but my impression is that it is not the most efficient part of Wikipedia, with currently >2000 articles in the backlog, many from several months ago. OKA creates several thousand new articles per year (99% of which are translations), so I have concerns that if all of these were to go through AFC, it would completely clog the process and makes us unable to operate. We will test it but, given the circumstances, there is a real risk we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages with less stringent paid editing policies.
Before doing this, I wanted to get your view on two points:
1) Do you see any path for requesting a simplification of the current policy? Requiring that every OKA article be submitted through AFC does not seem to benefit anyone, as it will (at best) reduce the productivity of both our translators and consume time from the volunteers reviewing the AFC list or (at worst) lead us to drop out of EN Wiki entirely
2) In case (1) is not possible and we need to go for the AFC route, would you be able to assist us in clearing the backlog from the OKA translations?
Thanks a lot for your advice!
7804j ( talk) 14:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm still on the learning curve here, but it seems like OKA-paid editors are not in the same class as what Wikipedia has heretofore considered pretty much an axiomatic equivalence between being paid on the one hand, and having a conflict of interest on the other, because it doesn't take into account philanthropy as a motive. If the OKA members can translate whatever articles they want, and are not vetted on the content of their translation by OKA, then I don't see where the conflict is. Maybe one thing that might help, is if OKA would forswear any articles on topics labeled as controversial on the Talk page, or might reasonably be considered controversial, that might help a bit. But getting back to conflict of interest: the meaning of the term is that there might be some undue advantage incurred by someone or some entity by dint of an editor being paid or in an official position of responsibility. But exactly who benefits ilicitly from translations of:
(those are just the first few entries at Special:WhatLinksHere for Template:OKA). If there is no prospect of anyone benefiting, then in my view, there can be no conflict of interest, regardless of pay. It may be that the unstated axiomatic equivalence principle needs to be reviewed, as it seems aimed (understandably, for historic reasons) solely at actors with self-interested motivation, without taking into account the possibility of actors with purely philanthropic motivation. We may need to consider that possibility now. Do we prohibit donors to Wikimedia or wmf employees from creating new articles here of their choice? I don't think so. Is that not an equivalent conflict of interest? (Yes, it seems equivalent to me, and no, it's not a conflict of interest when donors write articles, because there is no monitoring of what they do.) Maybe we need a new shortcut: WP:DONTBITETHEDONORS. The only ones I see benefiting from these additional (paid) translations for the most part, are readers of Wikipedia. Mathglot ( talk) 09:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Interlang policy and guideline shortcut table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend: row type (column one):
|
All of our articles would pass the AfC criteria.is often not the best idea. That one certainly wouldn't, and shouldn't, have passed. The one I deleted as G11/advertising from the editor I earlier discussed certainly wouldn't and shouldn't have passed either. So, that again reinforces my view that I don't trust your judgment in that, and they need to go through review by non-conflicted, non-paid editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki)
( refactored from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki) I have just discovered that several of the high quality translations by OKA editors which I moved to mainspace have been deleted on the basis of R2 which I simply do not understand. I have asked Liz for explanations on User talk:Shellypls so that we can resolve any problems. Perhaps Rosiestep can help with this. Otherwise it looks as if many OKA creations will simply remain as drafts.-- Ipigott ( talk) 13:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey everyone (and @ Rosiestep @ Ipigott, @ Mathglot),
In case you are interested, I just wanted to flag that a discussion was initiated in the Village pump regarding whether an exception to the AfC requirement for OKA.
7804j ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Following the suggestion of another editor, I have created a page for OKA at meta.wikimedia.org. I also in the process of wikifying our instructions to translators, so that all the documentation is available in-wiki. I believe that meta.wikimedia is a more suitable space for topics related to OKA, as OKA is active across multiple Wikipedia (EN, PT, ES). To avoid duplication, I was thinking of redirecting the existing pages on WikiProject Intertranswiki to the new home, but also happy to keep a presence here if you feel it is useful. 7804j ( talk) 19:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The original {{ OKA}} template has been replaced, and is now a redirect. The new one uses standard Module:WikiProject banner which is used by most WikiProjects to facilitate various operations, including auto-categorization. To see an example of the new template in use, see Talk:Ancient Regime of Spain.
Auto-categorization has already been initiated by the bot associated with this process, and the results can be seen in main category Articles translated by an OKA editor. Other categories exists for tracking and other purposes. As articles are assessed for quality, they will start to populate the quality-scale categories, which are listed at Category:OKA articles by quality. This change should be completely transparent; there is no reason afaik to give OKA editors any special notification of this change—they can keep doing what they were doing before, and keep using template redirect {{ OKA}} which is shorter and easier to type than the full, wikiproject template name.
I am not an expert on quality assessment, and there are some aspects of the quality assessment feature of the module that I believe involve a bot that can do auto-assessment for quality. I don't know how that all happens, but the new template is highly configurable, and if we want to change how categorization is done (or if it is done at all) that should all be doable using the extensive module parameter set. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a sentence in the § How to help section that said:
OKA editors are instructed to... delete the draft talk once the article is in the mainspace
I have deleted the part after the ellipsis. Talk page discussions should not be deleted (except for vandalism, personal attacks, and a few other reasons). Talk discussions may be (do not have to be) archived, but OKA editors need not be concerned with that; they already have enough on their plate. If this derives from external instructions given to OKA editors, please remove it from those instructions as well, at least as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. Mathglot ( talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the § How to help section that says:
OKA editors are instructed to add the {{ OKA}} template to the talk page of their drafts only once these are submitted for AfC...
In my opinion, editors should be instructed to add the {{ OKA}} template to the Talk page immediately after their first edit creating the page. This will aid transparency, categorization, collaboration, and improve the chances that other editors will find the Draft and drop by to help. If there is a good reason not to use the template right away, I'm willing to be persuaded, but I only see downsides to that and no advantages. Am I missing something? Mathglot ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Following the addition of quality categories as described above, a new section, § Status summary, has been added to the project page, in the form of a table summarizing the number of articles assigned to each quality category. Feedback, bug reports, and enhancement requests welcome. Note: this is unrelated to the ongoing test described in the section above. Mathglot ( talk) 11:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)