[Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Russavia
As GerardM mentioned in the thread relating to the Berlin conference,
wikiconferences are an opportunity for wikimedians to come together to
share in knowledge.

New York Magazine published an article on the conference which gives
us great insight into everything that is wrong with the wiki
culture.[1]

Out of curiosity, what was the total cost to "the movement" for this
knowledge sharing opportunity, and do people consider it money well
spent given the golden sound bytes the conference generated in the
media?

Cheers

Russavia

[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/love-and-drama-at-the-wikipedia-conference.html

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

MZMcBride-2
Russavia wrote:
>As GerardM mentioned in the thread relating to the Berlin conference,
>wikiconferences are an opportunity for wikimedians to come together to
>share in knowledge.

I attended WikiConference USA this year. It was a wonderful event and I
was particularly impressed with the organizers' work. Congrats to all of
them for a job well done!

>New York Magazine published an article on the conference which gives
>us great insight into everything that is wrong with the wiki
>culture.[1]

I know for certain that there quite a few people who feel that you,
Russavia, are actively damaging and degrading the wiki culture with your
actions... perhaps the same would be said of me and others, though I hope
not.

>Out of curiosity, what was the total cost to "the movement" for this
>knowledge sharing opportunity, and do people consider it money well
>spent given the golden sound bytes the conference generated in the
>media?
>
>[1] http://nym.ag/1urkXlD

In the medium, you mean? You've only linked to one story, a story that
happens to conveniently link to a press release about a certain banned
editor. Interesting. :-)

This article also seems to make some strange claims; e.g., the article
claims that there are only 22,000 registered Wikipedians. Given where it
links to, what it discusses, and the seeming inaccuracy of facts it
includes, I'm not sure how much this piece should be trusted.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Kevin Gorman
Hi Russavia -

Since the conference was funded through the PEG program, with the exception
of any WMF staff whose travel was funded by WMF (I don't know how many that
may include,) you can figure out the answer to "how much did it cost to the
movement" pretty ridiculously simply =p  Given the number of connections
that were made and future events that were generated, I suspect that, yes,
the conference was absolutely worth the money spent on it, although we
won't know that with surety until some of the planted collaborations have
an opportunity to actually be carried out.

Best,
Kevin Gorman


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:17 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Russavia wrote:
> >As GerardM mentioned in the thread relating to the Berlin conference,
> >wikiconferences are an opportunity for wikimedians to come together to
> >share in knowledge.
>
> I attended WikiConference USA this year. It was a wonderful event and I
> was particularly impressed with the organizers' work. Congrats to all of
> them for a job well done!
>
> >New York Magazine published an article on the conference which gives
> >us great insight into everything that is wrong with the wiki
> >culture.[1]
>
> I know for certain that there quite a few people who feel that you,
> Russavia, are actively damaging and degrading the wiki culture with your
> actions... perhaps the same would be said of me and others, though I hope
> not.
>
> >Out of curiosity, what was the total cost to "the movement" for this
> >knowledge sharing opportunity, and do people consider it money well
> >spent given the golden sound bytes the conference generated in the
> >media?
> >
> >[1] http://nym.ag/1urkXlD
>
> In the medium, you mean? You've only linked to one story, a story that
> happens to conveniently link to a press release about a certain banned
> editor. Interesting. :-)
>
> This article also seems to make some strange claims; e.g., the article
> claims that there are only 22,000 registered Wikipedians. Given where it
> links to, what it discusses, and the seeming inaccuracy of facts it
> includes, I'm not sure how much this piece should be trusted.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Russavia
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
MZMcBride, et al

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:17 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I know for certain that there quite a few people who feel that you,
> Russavia, are actively damaging and degrading the wiki culture with your
> actions... perhaps the same would be said of me and others, though I hope
> not.

I would appreciate it that if you are going to have a pot shot at me,
that you expand on it, and explain exactly what actions you are
talking about. However, this isn't about me, so feel free to start a
new thread on that if you so wish.

The article in question is obviously an issue, because gendergappers
are already saying that the unnamed female is owed an apology for the
comments which were directed towards her.[1][2]

The comments from Kevin Rutherford were entirely inappropriate, and
whilst others may not want to publicly say anything because they know
the editor in question,[3] I am willing to go on the record and say
that comments that come across as totally clueless have no place in a
chapter-organised and WMF sponsored event.

If Kevin Rutherford thinks that his comments were acceptable, then he
is sorely mistaken and he has shown clear misjudgment through his
comments at this public event, because they are not supported by the
wider community (if they are, then shame on the community).

I'm seriously not doubting that Frank Schulenberg is reported to have
shaken his head at the comments, because I know others who have read
the article have *facepalmed* and lolwut.

Having this in the media is just another cost that communities have to
face (it's not always about money), and unfortunately it seems to have
overshadowed anything actually useful that might have come of the
conference.

Cheers,

Russavia


[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004310.html
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004311.html
[3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004312.html

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Pine W
In reply to this post by Russavia
That article in the New York Times seems to describe the view of a curious
outsider's view on hard-core Wikipedians personally, and it does seem a bit
stereotyped, but since I wasn't at the conference I can only guess.

Some of us are discussing the idea that WMF Programs & Evaluation could
evaluate Wikimania, the Wikimedia Conference, and the annual hackathon in
the future. More info at [1]

Pine
(Trying a new email address to see if it handles discussions better)

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Parlor/Dialogue#Suggestions_for_programs_to_evaluate
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Risker
In reply to this post by Russavia
Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they
want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
herself refuses to allow them their voice.

I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people who
did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the women
were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.

Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia and
the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
sources in our articles.

Risker




On 7 June 2014 00:39, Russavia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> MZMcBride, et al
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:17 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I know for certain that there quite a few people who feel that you,
> > Russavia, are actively damaging and degrading the wiki culture with your
> > actions... perhaps the same would be said of me and others, though I hope
> > not.
>
> I would appreciate it that if you are going to have a pot shot at me,
> that you expand on it, and explain exactly what actions you are
> talking about. However, this isn't about me, so feel free to start a
> new thread on that if you so wish.
>
> The article in question is obviously an issue, because gendergappers
> are already saying that the unnamed female is owed an apology for the
> comments which were directed towards her.[1][2]
>
> The comments from Kevin Rutherford were entirely inappropriate, and
> whilst others may not want to publicly say anything because they know
> the editor in question,[3] I am willing to go on the record and say
> that comments that come across as totally clueless have no place in a
> chapter-organised and WMF sponsored event.
>
> If Kevin Rutherford thinks that his comments were acceptable, then he
> is sorely mistaken and he has shown clear misjudgment through his
> comments at this public event, because they are not supported by the
> wider community (if they are, then shame on the community).
>
> I'm seriously not doubting that Frank Schulenberg is reported to have
> shaken his head at the comments, because I know others who have read
> the article have *facepalmed* and lolwut.
>
> Having this in the media is just another cost that communities have to
> face (it's not always about money), and unfortunately it seems to have
> overshadowed anything actually useful that might have come of the
> conference.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
> [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004310.html
> [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004311.html
> [3] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004312.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Isarra Yos
On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:

> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they
> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>
> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people who
> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the women
> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>
> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia and
> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
> sources in our articles.

Hi. Thank you for this.

I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so
far as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them...
naming folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more
rude than what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall
Schulenberg had the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good
for him), but most of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking
advantage of that wasn't very nice either.

Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been
some some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and
quite frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the
line of questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to
have been jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying
to alleviate the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and
as a result I don't even know how much of what was quoted is even
representative of the views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.

For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do
so diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all
just doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone.
They were the ones wronged.

-K

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Pete Forsyth-2
Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
she described people, was really inappropriate. But I'm very glad to have
this confirmed by somebody who was there and involved.

In the more traditional world, what happened there carries a certain
accountability. If a company got that kind of treatment by the NY Magazine,
they would call the reporter and express that disappointment, and perhaps
put things in motion for better coverage for the future. If the reporter
doesn't get it, that's the sort of thing that will result in the
publication losing access to the company.

What's our analogue of that?
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
>
>> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
>> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
>> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
>> they
>> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
>> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
>> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
>> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
>> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
>> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>>
>> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
>> who
>> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
>> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
>> women
>> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>>
>> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
>> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
>> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
>> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
>> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
>> and
>> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
>> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
>> sources in our articles.
>>
>
> Hi. Thank you for this.
>
> I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
> journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
> putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so far
> as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them... naming
> folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more rude than
> what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall Schulenberg had
> the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good for him), but most
> of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking advantage of that
> wasn't very nice either.
>
> Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
> the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been some
> some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and quite
> frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the line of
> questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to have been
> jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying to alleviate
> the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and as a result I
> don't even know how much of what was quoted is even representative of the
> views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
>
> For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
> these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
> outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do so
> diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all just
> doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone. They were
> the ones wronged.
>
> -K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Kevin Rutherford
In reply to this post by Russavia
Hey all,

I wasn't going to comment on this on this thread, but I figured I should
since no one who has commented was there and it is turning into pure
speculation. This is what happened, in short: During a break in the
sessions, I was talking to one of the users and we sat down near Frank, who
just happened to be talking to the reporter. He ended up leaving once we sat
down with her (at no time was he even present for this discussion, contrary
to what she wrote), but Alex and I were there and got into a rather candid
discussion with her, as she seemed to show genuine interest in what we were
saying (a rarity, as most of you know). Since we were the only ones in the
room, others came and sat down next to us and joined in the discussion. The
woman editor, who many of you know but I won't place her name here just in
case she wants to remain anonymous, is a friend of mine and we get along
quite well. The reporter just happened to catch me completely making a fool
of myself, and published it in the magazine as proof that we cannot talk to
the opposite sex. At most, there were five people that she could have
interviewed alongside Alex and I, but she chose us.

In terms of how she quoted us, she liberally edited a lot of what we said,
as there are many things that both Alex and I said that were manipulated,
reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to prove her point (for
example, I never attempted to write an article about wiki babies, as there
is no way that that is notable). I'm probably not alone in that each time I
read the article, I realized that there was another outright lie or
misrepresentation in there that I would have never said about Wikipedians
either amongst ourselves or to anyone outside of the site.

This was also not a trap or setup, as we talked to her for around half an
hour before she had to go somewhere else. Maybe we erred in ignoring her
phone which was placed on the table, but I didn't think anything of it at
the time. I also have no problem chatting with the opposite sex, but it just
so happened that there was a reporter there the moment I dug a hole for
myself, and once the exchange ended, I quickly apologized and we laughed it
off. I did not go bumbling about for a few more minutes, as she reported.
There is no way that that quote is even close to how I feel about the gender
gap (I'm a feminist), and it doesn't help that the article portrays as us
rather elitist, which is also the opposite of who we are as people.

There are currently discussions going on about what we should do about this
in terms of an official response, and I have seen multiple Wikimedians take
down the mentions of this article on Facebook and Twitter once we realized
just how misrepresentative of the movement it is. I think it should be noted
that she had a wonderful opportunity to talk to some dedicated Wikipedians,
and completely destroyed what trust we had in her. Heck, she could have even
just reported on the fact that we had a conference which had an incredible
amount of women editors, and how great of an experience it was. Instead, she
mentioned wiki babies (the love aspect) and tied it into some drama that had
nothing to do with that.

I guess it is my word against hers here, but I just wanted to chime in so
that you all could be made aware of what happened that morning, since no one
has commented who was there and this is taking on a life of its own. Others
are welcome to refute or corroborate what I just said, since there if Alex
and I wanted to, we could easily go through the article and fact-check most
of what is there. There are also others on this list who were there to
witness this whole exchange, but I'll let them chime in if they feel the
need to.

Kevin Rutherford

P.S. Sorry for the block of text, as I didn't realize until I finished how
long this all was.

On 7 June 2014 02:36, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
> they
> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>
> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
> who
> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
> women
> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>
> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
> and
> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
> sources in our articles.
>
> Risker
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Tomasz Ganicz
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
I guess we can at least contact the journalst: jpressler (@) nymag.com
(found her E-mail on her public twitter account) asking to fix obvoius
factual mistakes (22 000 accounts etc) + provide POV of Issara and
others.

2014-06-07 9:41 GMT+02:00 Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>:

> Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
> I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
> reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
> titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
> she described people, was really inappropriate. But I'm very glad to have
> this confirmed by somebody who was there and involved.
>
> In the more traditional world, what happened there carries a certain
> accountability. If a company got that kind of treatment by the NY Magazine,
> they would call the reporter and express that disappointment, and perhaps
> put things in motion for better coverage for the future. If the reporter
> doesn't get it, that's the sort of thing that will result in the
> publication losing access to the company.
>
> What's our analogue of that?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
>>> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
>>> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
>>> they
>>> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
>>> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
>>> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
>>> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
>>> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
>>> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>>>
>>> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
>>> who
>>> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
>>> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
>>> women
>>> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>>>
>>> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
>>> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
>>> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
>>> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
>>> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
>>> and
>>> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
>>> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
>>> sources in our articles.
>>>
>>
>> Hi. Thank you for this.
>>
>> I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
>> journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
>> putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so far
>> as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them... naming
>> folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more rude than
>> what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall Schulenberg had
>> the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good for him), but most
>> of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking advantage of that
>> wasn't very nice either.
>>
>> Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
>> the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been some
>> some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and quite
>> frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the line of
>> questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to have been
>> jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying to alleviate
>> the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and as a result I
>> don't even know how much of what was quoted is even representative of the
>> views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
>>
>> For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
>> these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
>> outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do so
>> diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all just
>> doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone. They were
>> the ones wronged.
>>
>> -K
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Edward Saperia
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
I am furious about this coverage. Incredibly insulting to the entire movement. Our volunteers break their backs putting on a conference and the best NYM can think to write is "haha dorks"? Imagine if they did that for any other tech conference. Not even the barest attempt to cover the actual content or issues.

Ed Saperia
Chief Coordinator Wikimania London

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Jun 2014, at 08:41, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
> I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
> reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
> titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
> she described people, was really inappropriate. But I'm very glad to have
> this confirmed by somebody who was there and involved.
>
> In the more traditional world, what happened there carries a certain
> accountability. If a company got that kind of treatment by the NY Magazine,
> they would call the reporter and express that disappointment, and perhaps
> put things in motion for better coverage for the future. If the reporter
> doesn't get it, that's the sort of thing that will result in the
> publication losing access to the company.
>
> What's our analogue of that?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It was
>>> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
>>> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
>>> they
>>> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for the
>>> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
>>> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
>>> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
>>> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
>>> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
>>>
>>> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
>>> who
>>> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
>>> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
>>> women
>>> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
>>>
>>> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
>>> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel badly
>>> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
>>> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
>>> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
>>> and
>>> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
>>> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
>>> sources in our articles.
>>
>> Hi. Thank you for this.
>>
>> I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
>> journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
>> putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so far
>> as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them... naming
>> folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more rude than
>> what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall Schulenberg had
>> the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good for him), but most
>> of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking advantage of that
>> wasn't very nice either.
>>
>> Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
>> the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been some
>> some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and quite
>> frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the line of
>> questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to have been
>> jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying to alleviate
>> the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and as a result I
>> don't even know how much of what was quoted is even representative of the
>> views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
>>
>> For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
>> these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
>> outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do so
>> diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all just
>> doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone. They were
>> the ones wronged.
>>
>> -K
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Russavia
In reply to this post by Tomasz Ganicz
Tomasz, et al

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess we can at least contact the journalst: jpressler (@) nymag.com
> (found her E-mail on her public twitter account) asking to fix obvoius
> factual mistakes (22 000 accounts etc) + provide POV of Issara and
> others.

The 22,000 accounts is obviously meant to be 22,000,000.

New York Magazine, for what it's worth, was the winner of the 2013
Magazine of the Year Award.[1] An award which has previously been won
by Glamour, TIME, National Geographic, and in 2014 which was won by
The New Yorker. This is obviously not The National Enquirer or The
Daily Dot we are talking of here.

Jessica Pressler is published in New York, GQ, amongst others. She has
over 3,500 articles in New York Magazine alone.[2] So we are not
dealing with a fresh out of college journo here. However, she has had
her moments, such as her profile on Avicii in GQ which saw him taking
to Facebook to attack her article on him.[3]

There is the option of contacting her directly, or the chief editor of
the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way
-- create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;)

Cheers,

Russavia

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/national-magazine-award-winners-2013_n_3202938.html
[2] http://nymag.com/author/jessica%20pressler/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/avicii/posts/10151406809626799

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
I think there's something of a lesson here for people: don't trust the
press.

The job of a journalist, these days, is to write stories that people will
pay to read.  It is not to portray Wikimedia in the best possible light.
 It is not to be your friend, and it is not to record an accurate and
impartial view of events.  There is a reason that most organisations pay
for press contacts / spin doctors, and that reason is that journalists will
paint organisations in the worst possible light because that'll sell a few
extra papers.  Yes, it stinks.  No, there's not really anything to be done
about it.

Many journalists appear friendly, and outside of work, many of them are
decent people.  But when they're on the clock, you need to be aware that
they'll quite happily 'misinterpret' a social interaction and draw the
conclusion that "Wikimedians = Social Shut-ins with no ability to talk to
girls" from that.  So if you're at a conference with journalists about, act
accordingly.  And it doesn't hurt to be a bit cynical when you read these
sort of stories, because it's usually a somewhat distorted and
sensationalised view of things that you're reading.

Cheers,
Craig



On 7 June 2014 17:41, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
> I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
> reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
> titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
> she described people, was really inappropriate. But I'm very glad to have
> this confirmed by somebody who was there and involved.
>
> In the more traditional world, what happened there carries a certain
> accountability. If a company got that kind of treatment by the NY Magazine,
> they would call the reporter and express that disappointment, and perhaps
> put things in motion for better coverage for the future. If the reporter
> doesn't get it, that's the sort of thing that will result in the
> publication losing access to the company.
>
> What's our analogue of that?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Isarra Yos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
> >
> >> Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote.  But you know what?  It
> was
> >> a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
> >> knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story
> >> they
> >> want to tell, and this is what happened here.  She came in looking for
> the
> >> geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his
> strong
> >> suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
> >> One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of
> being a
> >> woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women.  And yet the reporter
> >> herself refuses to allow them their voice.
> >>
> >> I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people
> >> who
> >> did, and I also looked at the photos.  What struck me was how many women
> >> were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the
> >> women
> >> were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap"
> solution.
> >>
> >> Russavia, give everyone a break here.  I feel badly for the young woman,
> >> because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation.  I feel
> badly
> >> for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of
> expanding
> >> the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in
> a
> >> situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
> >> and
> >> the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet.  We
> >> all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
> >> sources in our articles.
> >>
> >
> > Hi. Thank you for this.
> >
> > I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
> > journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
> > putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so
> far
> > as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them... naming
> > folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more rude than
> > what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall Schulenberg had
> > the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good for him), but
> most
> > of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking advantage of that
> > wasn't very nice either.
> >
> > Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
> > the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been
> some
> > some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and quite
> > frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the line of
> > questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to have
> been
> > jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying to alleviate
> > the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and as a result I
> > don't even know how much of what was quoted is even representative of the
> > views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
> >
> > For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
> > these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
> > outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do so
> > diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all just
> > doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone. They
> were
> > the ones wronged.
> >
> > -K
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Edward at Logic Museum
In reply to this post by Kevin Rutherford
On 07/06/2014 09:10, Kevin Rutherford wrote:

 >>there are many things that both Alex and I said that were
manipulated, reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to
prove her point

You give some examples of things she distorted. Which things were true?
She wrote:

Some hardcore Wikipedians, you never see,” says Kevin Rutherford, a
braces-wearing 23-year-old whose badge identifies him as a volunteer
with the New England Wikimedians. “Some are very antisocial,” he says,
nodding at a group of people spilling out of a panel titled The State of
Wikidata. “Even some of the ones who are here. You’ll recognize them.
They have like the pizza-stained shirts. We’re the well-dressed, chill
ones,”

1. Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of
people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and
uncontrived.

2. You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any
idea why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you
said? In my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or
varnish the truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.

3. Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know
what 'chill' means.

4. Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And
then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?

These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what
happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.

Ed

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Kevin Gorman
Ktr: Unfortunately, just because you talk to a journalist for half an hour
doesn't mean it's not still a trap.  Luckily, this is a relatively easy way
to learn that lesson.

Isarra: whoa, I can't believe I guessed who the other contributor present
was.  Kudos on your response.

Best,
Kevin Gorman


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, edward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/06/2014 09:10, Kevin Rutherford wrote:
>
> >>there are many things that both Alex and I said that were manipulated,
> reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to prove her point
>
> You give some examples of things she distorted. Which things were true?
> She wrote:
>
> Some hardcore Wikipedians, you never see,” says Kevin Rutherford, a
> braces-wearing 23-year-old whose badge identifies him as a volunteer with
> the New England Wikimedians. “Some are very antisocial,” he says, nodding
> at a group of people spilling out of a panel titled The State of Wikidata.
> “Even some of the ones who are here. You’ll recognize them. They have like
> the pizza-stained shirts. We’re the well-dressed, chill ones,”
>
> 1. Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of
> people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and
> uncontrived.
>
> 2. You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any idea
> why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you said? In
> my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or varnish the
> truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.
>
> 3. Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know
> what 'chill' means.
>
> 4. Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And
> then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?
>
> These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what
> happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.
>
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
Craig Franklin wrote:
>I think there's something of a lesson here for people: don't trust the
>press.

The part of the piece I found most striking was that the author readily,
and almost boastfully, admits to speaking to "a minority of the minority
of the minority," but she seems to have no issue using this very limited
sample size to evaluate Wikipedia on the whole. Even if we assumed that
there are 22,000 registered Wikipedians, is a sample size of five or six
appropriate? If she meant 22,000,000, it seems like an even crazier leap.

After re-reading the piece, I'd probably stand by a lot of it. It's not a
great reflection of Wikipedia, but I also wouldn't call at least many
parts of it inaccurate, per se, just crudely distorted and manipulated.

The author used the tactic where you mention that Mandela was a convicted
criminal that spent 27 years in prison, but fail to mention that he won
the Nobel Peace Prize and was the revered president of South Africa.

This tactic is an easy way to create a distorted, but technically
accurate, impression. Some of the fine folks at Wikipediocracy are very
good at employing this tactic as well. :-)

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Edward at Logic Museum
On 07/06/2014 14:42, MZMcBride wrote:
 >>The part of the piece I found most striking was that the author
readily, and almost boastfully, admits to speaking to "a minority of the
minority of the minority," but she seems to have no issue using this
very limited sample size to evaluate Wikipedia on the whole.

But she is about right, isn't she?  I mean, there are millions and
millions of people who edit Wikipedia, about their garage band, e.g., or
about a company they were paid to edit for, or to write something
incompetent or plagiarised about history or philosophy, or whatever.
Some are remarkably good at it, many aren't. Most of these I suspect
would not call themselves 'Wikipedians'.  Then there are those who are
regularly involved with the site, mostly as 'content contributors', but
who would also shudder to call themselves 'Wikipedians'.  I would have
put myself in that category, when I used to edit. I care about the free
knowledge stuff, very much, actually, and I would always do my best to
ensure articles in my specialist field were reasonably accurate. Even
though I don't edit any more I still try and get stuff corrected
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/23/islands-of-sanity.  But I have
never seen myself as part of any 'community'.

Then there are the people who _would_ call themselves 'Wikipedians', but
wouldn't have the time or location or money to go to any of the
'community events'.  Finally there are the hard core, who talk about the
'movement' and who proselytise for it and who do turn up to such events.
So it's a minority of a minority of a minority, yes.  That's a rough
picture, obviously, but I don't think the journalist meant anything else.

, Ed

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Edward at Logic Museum
Hi edward.

I'm not Kevin Rutherford, but if you want to debate the accuracy of some
of the statements made (the content, not the author's presentation of the
content), I'm game. As discussed in this mailing list thread, the piece
contains facts, but also contains inaccurate statements and distortions.

edward wrote:
>1. Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of
>people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and
>uncontrived.

Sure, some Wikimedians are very anti-social. And these anti-social
Wikimedians are typically the people to eschew attending wiki conferences.
This is hardly surprising, as wiki conferences are full of people! This
does not mean that the more sociable Wikimedians are any better or worse
than the less sociable Wikimedians, this is just how people are. I think
it's a feature that Wikimedia is very open to both groups of people.

Speaking about my experiences specifically, conferences tend to attract
the extremes: people who edit a whole lot (and who are heavily involved
with Wikimedia) and people who have edited very little or not at all
(people who are curious and simply want to know more). Both extremes are
welcome, of course, as are the millions of people in the middle of the
extremes. It's not uncommon for a person who's just registered a Wikimedia
account that day to be sitting between a two-term English Wikipedia
Arbitrator and a Wikimedia Foundation Board member.

>2. You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any
>idea why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you
>said? In my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or
>varnish the truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.

Pizza was served for lunch on at least the third day. I have no doubt that
out of the dozens of people eating pizza, at least one or two stained
themselves with pizza grease. Spilling things on yourself is part of human
nature. I'm not totally sure what's groundbreaking or noteworthy here.
Pizza is greasy and humans wear clothes; film at 11. ;-)

>3. Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know
>what 'chill' means.

Try <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chill#Adjective>? :-)

>4. Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And
>then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?

Wikimedia is heavily edited and influenced by white, male techies (myself
included). I think this has become common knowledge. There are various
efforts to mitigate and address this, but it's neither quick nor easy work.

Given the premise that Wikimedians are typically white, male techies with
college degrees, I believe the "you are like us, but you're not" meant
that the person in question was typical in being a white techie with a
college degree, but atypical in being a female contributor.

>These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what
>happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.

I'm not sure what your specific focus is here with these questions.
Perhaps you could clarify?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Fæ
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
Could we have some facts please?

* What proportion of attendees at the conference were women? *
- Several emails in this thread have claimed it was high, nobody has
provided evidence. As Wikimedia funded conferences measure diversity,
publicly reporting this figure should be *a good thing*.

* What proportion of attendees were Wikimedia Chapter or Foundation
contractors or employees and attending the conference could be
considered part of their employment? *
- At least one email here claimed that volunteers broke their backs
running the conference, which seems to overlook that a high proportion
of registered attendees were employees and probably did most of the
preparation. I asked this question last year about another conference,
it was never answered properly, as it was never measured. Again, this
ought to be *a good thing* to report on, as our values are to keep the
volunteer at the centre of everything we do and driving our movement
rather than paying Executives six-figure sums to tell us what we
should believe in.

Lastly, this appears a yellow journalism fluff-piece. I prefer to see
volunteers wearing hoodies rather than corporate black suits,
regardless of their gender or orientation, these are the people most
likely to make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the
Wikimedia movement. So good luck to pizza stained t-shirts, wear them
with pride.

Let's not fall into the trap of indulging corporate style PR paranoia,
let's stick to the *facts* of what gets measured and reported. Of
course, if you are responsible for publicly reporting and measuring,
then /shame/ on you if you are failing to do so in a mistaken belief
that this is a way to manipulate public perception, or our perception.

Fae

On 07/06/2014, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Craig Franklin wrote:
>>I think there's something of a lesson here for people: don't trust the
>>press.
>
> The part of the piece I found most striking was that the author readily,
> and almost boastfully, admits to speaking to "a minority of the minority
> of the minority," but she seems to have no issue using this very limited
> sample size to evaluate Wikipedia on the whole. Even if we assumed that
> there are 22,000 registered Wikipedians, is a sample size of five or six
> appropriate? If she meant 22,000,000, it seems like an even crazier leap.
>
> After re-reading the piece, I'd probably stand by a lot of it. It's not a
> great reflection of Wikipedia, but I also wouldn't call at least many
> parts of it inaccurate, per se, just crudely distorted and manipulated.
>
> The author used the tactic where you mention that Mandela was a convicted
> criminal that spent 27 years in prison, but fail to mention that he won
> the Nobel Peace Prize and was the revered president of South Africa.
>
> This tactic is an easy way to create a distorted, but technically
> accurate, impression. Some of the fine folks at Wikipediocracy are very
> good at employing this tactic as well. :-)
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media

Edward at Logic Museum
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 07/06/2014 15:08, MZMcBride wrote:
 >>I'm not sure what your specific _focus_ [my emphasis] is here with
these questions. Perhaps you could clarify?

I think you mean 'intention' rather than 'focus'. I already spelled out
the _focus_, which was on whether Kevin _said_ those things attributed
to him or not, or whether it was complete journalistic invention. As I
said, journalists tend to embellish and varnish, rarely is there
complete invention.

Regarding _intention_ I would rather like to get to the truth about
whether he said that or not (rather than whether what he was supposed to
have said was true).  For example, he is supposed to have said "We’re
the well-dressed, chill ones".  I suppose at the back of my mind was, if
he really said that, what on earth was he thinking of, if he knew he was
speaking to a journalist?  I mean, if you talk to these people you want
to be as open as you can, without being deceptive, but always mindful
that anything you say may be taken as it is and published in the Daily
Mail. So think carefully about what you say. If Kevin did say that, then
two things are publishable, (i) that he is mentally dividing, perhaps
not very nicely, the Wikipedians who aren't cool or hip, and himself and
his 'chill' mates, and (ii) he is rather risibly signifying that he is
cool and hip, which is something you should be generally careful of
doing, even with mates, and especially with journalists, who are sort of
programmed to pick up on these things.

Note I said 'taken as it is' and not 'taken out of context'. People talk
about 'remarks taken out of context' but when you look at what they
said, it is nearly always that they weren't thinking carefully about
what they were saying, and inadvertently gave away thoughts that they
would rather have kept inside their heads.

But we don't know whether he actually did say that or not.

Thanks for explaining 'chill'.

, Ed

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123