Well, that was a rather sycophantic interview with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, on Radio New Zealand, as the online encyclopĂŠdia turns 20.
So I was rather excited when a Tweeter said he was going to interview Wales and asked for questions from the public. I responded:
Why did your co-founder Larry Sanger accuse Wikipedia of being anti-expertise?
What are you doing to ensure that bad actors do not scam their way into senior editor positions?
Why is Wikipedia in English so much less reliable than Wikipedia in German or Japanese?
Letâs say theyâre not going to get asked. He wrote:
There's not really such a thing as a senior editor position. It is unlikely that a bad actor would make thousands of good edits just to get a reputation within the editor community only to then try to undermine the project. Openness means bad actors are identified quickly.
Semantics aside, are there not editors who rise up the ranks to have more editing privileges than others? They donât necessarily undermine the project within the Wikipedia domain. Happy to discuss more if youâre genuinely interested.
No reply. And of course there are senior editors: Wikipedians themselves use this term. I can only assume that it’s going to be another sycophantic interview. Why arenât some people willing to ask some hard ones here? I’m guessing that the only way tough questions are asked about tech is if a woman gets on to it (someone like Louise Matsakis or Sarah Lacy).
Thereâs plenty of evidence of all three of my positions, as documented here and elsewhere, and I didn’t even include a great question on bullying.
For your listening pleasure, here’s tonight’s podcast, with a bit behind the scenes on my first appearance on RNZ’s The Panel as a panellist, and ‘I’ve Been Thinking’ delivered at a more appropriate pace, without me staring at the clock rushing to finish it before the pips for the 4 p.m. news.
Itâs interesting to note that someone as noted as Doc Searls encountered a Facebook bug, which prompted me to comment with the below.
Few things work on this site now. Iâve frequently been unable to share since I joined in 2007. Every now and then I canât like things, and regularly, Facebook removes the choices of hearts, sad face, angry face, etc. If I type a link, Facebook sometimes appends some letters from the status update to the end of it, so when it generates a preview, that results in a 404. Every now and then, with increasing frequency, whatever I type into a status update appears in all caps and bold type (and no, I donât have caps lock on). On almost all groups I see three postsânothing older. Notifications and messages fail to load over 90 per cent of the time. Often I cannot comment, but I can highlight the words âWrite a commentâ, so I have to resort to making an image featuring text and paste it in the comment box! I cannot see my advertising preferences: they have not loaded for the last few years, even if I leave the window open for an entire day while I am out (I only get a spinning wheel).
Iâm no tech, but as a layman what I see is a website disintegrating, with more and more bugs weighing it down. Above is what I experience now but if I go back over the years (especially when there was a Getsatisfaction forum), there were other bugs. I still remember when Facebook stopped working on the 1st of each month! But 2020 certainly marks the year when I get a whole bunch of bugs simultaneously.
My theory has always been that Facebookâs resources are all spent hosting bots that there is nothing left for legitimate users!
I didnât even add that I canât see any Facebook video now (they donât play at all), and there’s no point posting Instagram links as, despite the two companies having the same parent, Facebook won’t show the image:
As to the new look, I have very little confidence. When asked why I was switching back to the classic template, something which will be impossible soon, I wrote (not that these schmucks will care):
You canât tag companies when editing text. You have to begin writing on a clean line, often retyping the post to do it. Waste of time, youâre making Facebook less and less relevant.
When looking at groups people in a group queue have joined, you canât see as many, which makes it harder for group admins to detect fake accounts (as you guys are pretty useless at doing it).
When a friend (a person of colour in the US) wondered why she was seeing a lot of attacks against the Republican National Convention and none against the Democratsâ, even though she is apolitical, I responded (inter alia):
Facebook has plenty of ex-staff and insiders who point out it will always amp up things to get people upset or outraged, as scientificallyâthanks to the work of Professor Fogg at Stanfordâpeople engage more with these. Armed with what they have collected, the algorithms will make a call one way or another to ensure they show you things that will provoke a reaction. As the algorithms have been designed predominantly by white American men (and I know: not all white American men fit into this), I really believe they wonât take in the experiences of people of colour like us, and arguably they wonât understand the international nature of your work. For instance, Facebook used to stop working on the 1st of each month, as our walls would freeze on the 30th or 31st. We would have to wait till it was the 1st in California, which meant in our summer, we would have to wait 21 hours each month for Facebook to work normally. These folks arenât smart when it comes to âoutside Californiaâ, let alone outside the US.
Finally, I will leave you with this gem (every now and then I come up with one) from Twitter:
These days, some say their opinions are as valid as the next personâs. No, theyâre not. Not if theyâre badly argued or reasoned. A fair society doesnât mean all opinions are equal. And an unfair society means that bad opinions have undue weight. In my opinion.
What a pleasure it was to be back on The Panel on Radio New Zealand National today, my first appearance in a decade. That last time was about the Wellywood sign and how I had involved the Hollywood Sign Trust. Iâve done a couple of interviews since then on RNZ (thank you to my interviewers Lynda Chanwai-Earle and Finlay Macdonald, and producer Mark Cubey), but it has been 10 years and a few months since I was a phone-in guest on The Panel, which I listen to very frequently.
This time, it was about Hong Kong, and the new national security legislation that was passed last week. You can listen here, or click below for the embedded audio. While we begin with the latest development of social media and other companies refusing to hand over personal data to the Hong Kong government (or, rather, they are âpausingâ till they get a better look at the legislation), we move pretty quickly to the other aspects of the law (the juicy stuff and its extraterritorial aims) and what it means for Hong Kong. Massive thanks to Wallace Chapman who thought of me for the segment.
As someone who read Confucius as a young man, and was largely raised on his ideas, free speech with self-regulation is my default positionâthough when it becomes apparent that people simply arenât civilized enough to use it, then you have to consider other solutions.
We have Facebook making statements saying they are âStanding Against Hateâ, yet when friends report white nationalist and separatist groups, they are told that nothing will be done because it is âcounter-speechâ. We know that Facebook has told the Privacy Commissioner, John Edwards, that it has done absolutely nothing despite its statements. This is the same company that shut off its âView asâ feature (which allowed people to check how their walls would look from someone elseâs point-of-view) after share price-affecting bad press, yet when it comes to actual humans getting killed and their murders streamed live via their platform, Facebook, through its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, essentially tells us, âThere are no problems, nothing to see here.â
Weâre just a platform
We take no responsibility at all for what gets shared through us. You can say what you like, but we think we can weather this storm, just as we weathered the last one, and just as weâll weather the next.
Kiwi lives donât matter
White nationalist groups make for great sharing. And sharing is caring. So we wonât shut them down as we did with Muslim groups. The engagement is just too good, especially when weâre only going to upset fewer than five million New Zealanders.
Hate is great
Hate gets shared and people spend more time on Facebook as a result. Whether it’s about New Zealanders or the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, we’ll be there to help distribute it. Genocide’s fine when it doesn’t affect our share price.
Facebook users are âdumb fucksâ
Our founder said it, and this is still our ongoing policy at Facebook. Weâll continue to lie because we know youâre addicted to our platform. And no matter which country summons our founder, we know you wonât have the guts to issue a warrant of arrest.
Actions speak more loudly than words, and in Facebookâs case, their words are a form of Newspeak, where they mean the opposite to what everyone else understands.
#Facebook: we had better turn off the âView asâ function, it could be open to abuse.
Also Facebook: live-streaming is fine, nothing to see here.#Facebooklies
Polity has gone through the MFAT OIA documents relating to Judith Collins’s visit to China, where she met with Oravida thrice.
I’ve been reading them but out of order (the second bunch only) and their summary of what I have read gels with my take on things.
These matters have been covered better on political blogs, but I can’t but help drawing comparisons between the stubbornness of this government with the days of Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken and others in the UK Conservatives in the 1990s. The Minister’s latest, that the Greens were quick to capitalize on (as they did with Simon Bridgesâwhich begs the question of where Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is), is this quotation: âDoes that have anything to do with me? Am I the minister of wetlands? Go and find someone who actually cares about this, because I donât. Itâs not my issue ⊠I donât like wetlandsâtheyâre swamps.â
This Cabinet has opened itself up to media attacks because of the relatively large holes in its conduct, of which the above seems typical.
The odd one, at least to 21st-century eyes, has to be the PM’s defence of Collins, as reported by Radio New Zealand: ‘Meanwhile, the Prime Minister blames Twitter for the stress Ms Collins has faced over her involvement with Oravida ⊠Mr Key said Ms Collins had been under a lot of stress and much of that was driven by comments on Twitter.’
One of my friends responded, ‘If he’d ever seen the abuse she dished out in her tweets, he’d know she was the instigator of most of it, not the victim.’
And the PM makes one critical mistake here: he seems to portray social media as some sort of foreign world, where specialist knowledge is required. It’s certainly one that certain members of the old media fraternity love to use.
The truth is social media arenât that different: they are merely extensions of what one already knows. If you have been in business or in public service, you should know how to write and communicate. If you’re a reasonably competent writer in your everyday life, then it’s a cinch that you’ll be good at communicating with social media.
I might get sucked in by the odd troll every now and then, but Twitter stress isn’t a valid enough excuse in my book.
However, the PM is a smart guy. He knows that most of us will forget in a short space of time and there’ll be another scandal that will surface. So the disappearance of Collins through a time-out might be a good calculated moveâat least that’s what he’s counting on. But the fourth estate might not be as forgiving this time. Duncan Garner wrote (also noting she needed a Twitter break): ‘The truth is, her story about what she was doing in China with Oravida has completely collapsed. She has lost all credibility. What started as a pop-in cup of milk and a private dinner turns out to be a turbo-blasted official dinner involving both Governments, their officials, a senior Minister (Collins) and a National party donor (Oravida).’
The problem with all of this is: where’s Labour, in the midst of the greatest gift an opposition has been given for years?
One friend of a friend noted that maybe Labour shouldn’t be attacking, because we Kiwis don’t like whingers. It is the charge I hear from friends on the right. Labour should, instead, be coming up with solid policies and leave the attacks to the Greens (which is doing a marvellous job) and Winston Peters (need I say more? He remains a great political wordsmith).
For me, I’d like them to do both if they are to stand a chance. The job of the Opposition is to oppose.
And failure to oppose strongly may suggest to the electorate that the same thing could happen under Labour.
Six months out from the election I contested, I had my policies publishedâwhich one blog noted was unusual but welcome. That meant my policies were out for twice as long as my opponents’.
We’re talking about a party that has been in opposition for a long time, long enough to know what it wishes to do should it be handed the reins of government.
And yet, apart from a few policy announcements here and there, it has been silent. You’d think the names of the Shadow Cabinet would be in our consciousness by now. Embarrassingly, I even forgot David Cunliffe’s name recently in a conversation. I could only call him ‘not-Robertson’. (It is better than the PM calling Grant Robertson ‘Perry Mason’ today, I hasten to add.)
It makes me wonder if Labour isn’t working and whether the anti-National vote will, indeed, head even more to the Greens this year.
The good news today is that Wellington Airport is officially in two minds about what type of sign it will put up on the Miramar cutting, which means that the âWellywoodâ sign protest has had a victory of sorts.
Iâm thrilled at the news because it shows people powerâespecially people like Anthony Lander who set up the largest of the anti-sign Facebook groups, and the 15,000-plus who joined thereâcame through.
The issue was always, and still is, transparency: how the council was prepared to say, âThis is not our problem. Itâs on airport land,â without giving a toss about how the rest of us felt.
The speed with which resource consent was granted was also questionable.
But the people of Wellington showed that we still have what it takes to make politicians back down, even if it is to cement their own power base.
This year, weâre discovering our own power and that we can keep politicians honest.
Hopefully in the election this year Wellingtonians will decide that it should not be âpolitics as usualâ. The important thing is that we vote, so we donât have the usually pathetic 30-something per cent turnout. And letâs start talking about even bigger issues.
Of some interest this week is the media giving a tad more coverage to the Murdoch Pressâs desire to charge for access in the UK. Websites for The Times, The Sun and News of the World will charge from June, something which was raised today on Radio New Zealand National.
This is not new: I spoke out against it back in November during an address I gave at CPIT, because I could not see how it could be workable.
According to the discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora, the Murdoch Press is banking on its UK newspaper competitors following suit.
No one doubts that a lot of the work being done by the press is valuable and deserves compensation. But this doesnât ring true to me as a workable model.
What it will initially do is drive people to non-Murdoch websites for UK news.
Assuming other qualities and national tabloids follow suit, then we can watch the UKâs influence on global dialogue disappear. No one will care what the British people think on any issue, if their media are inaccessible.
It wonât get that bad, because I believe The Daily Telegraph will always be around in a free format, since it was one of the internet pioneersâit celebrated its 15th anniversary online last year. Thanks to the website, its international influence has grown.
The Murdoch plan also provides a wonderful opportunity for regional newspapers to become the national digital media of record if they are willing to provide their information freely.
I am quite happy to pay for some news services. But it does not come from charging for the raw articles. It might come from a value-added service: who will be the first to lay out a PDFed newspaper that is automatically generated from international sources that I can read, whether on screen or on an Ipad? In 2010, there has to be something beyond the words and a low-res pic, because a lot of news has, predictably, become commodified. (An internal newsletter we had here in the early 1990s predicted as much; meanwhile, this is a good academic paper on the issues.)
Some American publishers are getting the idea, and I have heard from an Australian company that is planning to do something similarly innovative. Therefore, I think Murdochs may have misread this one (as it has on climate change, according to one group): it is not akin to the BSkyB set-top box or other media it has encountered in the past.
Speaking of Brits, I have had three people this week say I have an English accent. One of them is Irish. Feel free to take a look at this old clip on Sunrise. I canât hear it. I sound nothing like Leslie Grantham or Michael Parkinson.
