Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com There is a perennial media narrative that unmediated content production cannot possibly work, as it goes against everything media people understand. They have run pretty much THE SAME story about Wikipedia every year since it was created. This narrative is so strong that no mere facts or objective reality can kill it. I expect to see it next year and the year after too, and the year after that. That perennial media narrative is a meme you're fighting. You need to come up and use a countermeme that will chase it down and kill it- the meme has to spread faster than that idea, so that every time somebody says that, some bright spark kills them dead with the mildly amusing/apropro reply and do your work for you. One counter meme I've seen (that you're probably all familiar with) is: That's the THEORY, that unmediated content CANNOT work, but the wikipedia works only in PRACTICE, but not in theory!!! There's probably other, better memes you can use. - d. -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Ian Woollardian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: That perennial media narrative is a meme you're fighting. I think part of it is that it's much simpler than the rather subtle truth. Meme: Wikipedia had the goal of complete openness and anarchy, but it failed and they came crawling back to more traditional methods. Subtle truth: Wikipedia used complete openness and anarchy as an effective tool to jumpstart the creation of an encyclopaedia and to build a community around it. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media. Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no idea... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media. Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no idea... -- No, I also heard a discussion about it last night on the Toronto CBC Radio program Here and Now during their technology report. They segued into the Wikipedia angle from a discussion on the challenges of anonymity online. The host asked how not being able to edit directly would change Wikipedia, and the technology specialist responded that maturity, and finding a balance between openness and responsibility to its subjects, was playing a role. He also pointed out that, in a few short years, Wikipedia has gone from the upstart nobody took seriously to an established reference source that was often the first stop for information. He even called us the new establishment. Unfortunately, this program isn't podcast, although I understand an abbreviated transcript may be available later this week. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com: 2009/8/26 Andrew Gray shimg...@gmail.com We've had a story in the New York Times. Meanwhile, judging by the way David Gerard and WMUK are dashing around, it's all over the UK media. Is this just observer bias, or is internal changes to Wikipedia for some reason a really interesting thing to the British press? I have no idea... No, I also heard a discussion about it last night on the Toronto CBC Radio program Here and Now during their technology report. They segued into the Wikipedia angle from a discussion on the challenges of anonymity online. Yeah. It's difficult sometimes to get just how very mainstream Wikipedia is. We are the big time. Normal people know what we are, at least sort of. also pointed out that, in a few short years, Wikipedia has gone from the upstart nobody took seriously to an established reference source that was often the first stop for information. He even called us the new establishment. The hard part is that people have no idea how it works. So stories like this are an opportunity to explain ourselves to the world, which is actually important. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:51 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: snip Yeah. It's difficult sometimes to get just how very mainstream Wikipedia is. We are the big time. Normal people know what we are, at least sort of. snip The hard part is that people have no idea how it works. So stories like this are an opportunity to explain ourselves to the world, which is actually important. I do hope some of the things being said in the papers are being corrected, or something said somewhere. When I read in the paper tonight (thelondonpaper - freebie that I like but has had the plug pulled by Murdoch) was a bit depressing in how wrong the tone it struck was: Experts sought Wikipedia to end open editing rule Wikipedia has been forced to ditch its policy of allowing anyone to edit its pages. The free encyclopedia will draft in 20,000 unpaid expert editors to check all changes to articles on living people before the pages go online. The move is an attempt to stop malicious entries which could lead to lawsuits. Tory and Labour politicians, as well as 'web vandals', have in the past falsified entries to discredit their enemies. And in 2007 it emerged one of Wikipedia's main contributors had faked his qualifications. Ryan Jordan edited more then 20,000 pages after falsely claiming to be a professor of theology. Wikipedia was set up in 2001, built on the work of volunteers. It was depressing to find that nearly every sentence was based on, or perpetuated, a misunderstanding. The only crumb of comfort was that it was buried at the bottom of page 6 and was short enough for me to type it all out. 1) Experts sought - yes, but that's always been the case, nothing to do with flagged revisions. 2) Wikipedia to end open editing rule - many people will interpret this as Wikipedia requiring people to register to edit. It might seem like splitting hairs to say that anyone *can* still edit, but the edit will only go live if one other person (a reviewer) agrees with you. It is an important point to make. It is moving from a system where each edit only needs one person (the original editor) to approve it, to a system where each edit now needs two people to approve it (the original editor and the reviewer). 3) Wikipedia has been forced to ditch its policy of allowing anyone to edit its pages - see above comment to point 2, but the addition here is the word forced. I've seen this word used quite a few times in the media - where did this idea come from that we were forced to do this? It was, surely, presented as the community of editors, based on current status of the project, and current standards, and past incidents, deciding to adopt a trial of a new system. Quite how journalists get from that to forced I don't know. Forced gives the impression that things were falling apart at the seams and failing, or, worse still, that some form of external influence forced the change (influenced maybe, but not forced). 4) The free encyclopedia will draft in 20,000 unpaid expert editors to check all changes to articles on living people before the pages go online - the impression given here is that these will be *new* editors, when presumably whatever source the journalist used was referring to the core of active *current* editors (and calling them experts as well). The use of unpaid in this way might suggest to some people that there are other, paid editors, who failed to keep the encyclopedia free of such things, and we are now needing to bring in (draft) an army of 20,000 extra editors to clean things up (actually, that wouldn't be such a bad idea). Going back to the start of the article, the phrase experts sought, in conjunction with the phrase expert editors here, suggests that Wikipedia is looking for 20,000 new expert editors to deal with BLP stuff, when in fact we want our core of active editors (presumably the recent change patrollers) to approve revisions, and there is no special expertise needed here, only the ability to spot vandalism and dodgy edits (though if things go wrong with flagged revisions (such as a journalist saying that he was unable to make a perfectly good edit stick), the papers will say far worse things, and with even more inaccuracies - this is why major companies have big public relations departments, to try and offset bad or inaccurate newspaper coverage, or to set the news agenda, rather than be responding to the news. 5) The move is an attempt to stop malicious entries which could lead to lawsuits - it's not *really* for that, or at least not just for that, but this might be the most accurate sentence in the article. On the other hand, you could argue it misses the point that preventing such edits is as much about doing the right thing and avoiding inaccuracies than it is about lawsuits, as it is the editor (and now, presumably the reviewer who lets the edit through) who gets sued, not Wikipedia (unless that's changed, recently). 6) Tory and Labour politicians, as well as 'web vandals',
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
2009/8/26 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com: I do hope some of the things being said in the papers are being corrected, or something said somewhere. It's ongoing hard work. Basically they write something awful, you write a note thanking them for coverage, correcting their minor details wrong, thanking them again and maybe they remember next time. This does work eventually. When I read in the paper tonight (thelondonpaper - freebie that I like but has had the plug pulled by Murdoch) was a bit depressing in how wrong the tone it struck was: Experts sought Wikipedia to end open editing rule Wikipedia has been forced to ditch its policy of allowing anyone to edit its pages. There is a perennial media narrative that unmediated content production cannot possibly work, as it goes against everything media people understand. They have run pretty much THE SAME story about Wikipedia every year since it was created. This narrative is so strong that no mere facts or objective reality can kill it. I expect to see it next year and the year after too, and the year after that. Also, if you can find anyone at the London Paper who gives a hoot about what they're producing any more (apart from the Em cartoon, that's good), I'll give you a lollipop ;-) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A sudden thought on the media coverage of flagged revisions
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: snip Also, if you can find anyone at the London Paper who gives a hoot about what they're producing any more (apart from the Em cartoon, that's good), I'll give you a lollipop ;-) Em's good, but Nemi's better! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
