Discussão:Imprensa/Entrevista - Sergio Matsuura (O Globo) - Roger Bamkin

1) O caso Roger Bamkin, de alguma maneira, mancha a imagem da Wikipedia?

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "The major issue that's been discussed in the press lately, and the issue that has gotten a lot of attention on Wikipedia, is the suggestion that a Wikipedian, and a prominent volunteer, has financially profited from his work on the project. This can be harmful to the image and reputation of Wikipedia, although this isn't necessarily a new topic on Wikipedia. As a volunteer-built project, and a project that aims to share knowledge of every subject imaginable, there will inevitably be challenges with perceptions of neutrality and there will be users who will be accused of contributing to the project as part of their paid job - not as volunteers".

"Wikipedians hold neutrality in the very highest regard, and the millions of readers of Wikipedia have also come to expect high quality, neutrally written articles with excellent sources. The suggestion that anyone is profiting from their work on Wikipedia can hurt the perceptions of quality and neutrality."

2) Como a Wikipedia trata os casos de conflito de interesses?

A comunidade da Wikipédia, formada por voluntários, acompanha a criação de verbetes diariamente e os avalia de acordo com critérios de relevância e qualidade. Requer fontes verificáveis e confiáveis, além de uma seção de controvérias, quando há. Se o verbete é relevante para figurar na enciclopédia e tem fontes verificáveis e confiáveis, por que não mantê-lo? A comunidade Wikipédia não verifica as circunstâncias das edições (até porque não tem como e como não é baseada na legitimidade do autor, não tem porquê). Ela verifica o resultado. Se o resultado é um verbete digno de figurar na Wikipédia, ele será mantido. Quando um verbete claramente é ação de um assessor de imprensa promovendo uma empresa, uma pessoa, ou uma ideia, sem fontes verificáveis, confiáveis ou sem controvérsias, ele costima ser deletado.--Oona (WMF) (discussão) 23h32min de 26 de setembro de 2012 (UTC)

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "Commonly Wikipedians will openly and transparently disclose any conflict of interest they have on the project. They will usually disclose this on their user page (a public page they use to describe who they are and what they're involved with) and it's generally accepted practice for them to disclose any conflict of interest on the talk pages of articles in which they might have a conflict, and where they have previously edited. Of course Wikipedians strongly discourage editing of articles in which they may have a conflict of interest - and best practices suggest that they should avoid this practice completely".

3) Existe alguma normatização sobre aspectos éticos para os colaboradores da Wikipedia?

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "There exist many best practices on Wikipedia to describe the optimal conduct of Wikipedians. Perhaps the most important and well-known of these is the 'five pillars' of Wikipedia:http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Cinco_pilares"

"Among those rules is a very clear recognition of Wikipedia's focus on neutral point of view. Alongside those there are also a number of more detailed policies about conflict of interest, editing for pay, and dealing with advocacy and notability."

"Although Wikipedia does have these core guidelines and policies there is no absolutely firm and total rule that Wikipedians cannot edit if they have a conflict of interest."

4) Como estabelecer limites para o conflito de interesses?

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "This is an ongoing topic of discussion on Wikipedia. In some cases, the limits and parameters may be different for different language editions of Wikipedia. In general Wikipedians themselves will use their judgement, assessment of facts and details, and precedents from other historical situations to ascertain whether a real conflict of interest may exist. If a Wikipedian is being honest and transparent in disclosing any potential conflicts of interest, and if they are staying away from editing articles where they might have a conflict of interest, then there are usually no problems. The issue tends to arise when Wikipedians do not disclose, or they may not realize that they have, conflicts of interest."

5) Publicamente, a Wikimedia nega qualquer conflito de interesse na atuação de Bamkin no projeto em Gibraltar. Mas, após o escândalo tornar-se público, ele foi afastado. Isso não aumenta ainda mais as especulações?

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "Actually it was Wikipedians who first pointed out on the project that the user in question might have a conflict of interest. This took place on the discussion page of English Wikipedia for the 'Did you Know' section of the project, which appears on the main page of Wikipedia. I wouldn't agree that publicly the project, nor even the people associated with this issue have clearly disputed the existence of an issue. In some cases it has been pointed out that Roger Bamkin disclosed at various times to the Wikimedia chapter in the UK that he did have a conflict of interest. There are several parties involved in this issue though, and it would be incorrect to imply that all of those parties have the same opinion and view. In fact on Wikipedia it's common to see many different viewpoints."

6) Pela posição que o Bamkin ocupava, o que ele poderia fazer em favor de algum artigo que qualquer outro colaborador não poderia?

Bamkin não tinha nenhum privilégio particular - e a posição que ocupava não dava a ele nenhuma vantagem na edição de verbetes. Mas sua experiência, como editor voluntário, contribui para saber que tipo de verbete é aceito, como fazê-lo, como criá-lo (assim como uma pessoa experiente em qualquer outra matéria pode oferecer vantagens (para ficar no universo do jornalismo, um profissional experiente saberá como construir uma pauta que tenha mais chances de emplacar). Mas não havia nenhuma vantagem garantida por sua posição. Apenas sua experiência após anos editando contribuía para que seus verbetes fossem destacados. --Oona (WMF) (discussão) 23h32min de 26 de setembro de 2012 (UTC)

resposta do Jay Walsh, head of communications da Wikimedia Foundation: "It's important to make a clear distinction between Roger Bamkin's volunteer roles with the organization known as Wikimedia UK (which is the volunteer run chapter based in the UK that conducts outreach programs to support the Wikimedia projects). Roger was at one point chair of the board of trustees for Wikimedia UK, and until recently he was a trustee of Wikimedia UK. Those titles afforded him no special privileges or favors as a Wikipedian editor, which he also is. These roles and positions are relatively unrelated."

"Being a Wikipedian does not give one more power as a volunteer board member, and being a volunteer board member grants no special status as a Wikipedian. There are only a few distinct levels of authority in Wikipedia. About 1500 editors (out of tens of thousands) are what are known as 'administrators' - they have the ability to block a user, protect an article, etc. Those special statuses are granted only on Wikipedia though, based on your work within Wikipedia - effectively only via your merit."

"Trust this helps - please don't hesitate to follow up with any questions."