Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Ira, Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable. Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold no responsibility for. If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing with media. What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and it will make you look in the future. Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that New York Magazine still sucks. Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how sScientologist/s Wikipediologist-like. It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira. For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system. Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they have been slighted. Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project, Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting comparison isn't it. So, there you have it Ira, I hope this gives you something to think about, and if you want to comment further, then I welcome it. Cheers Russavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Katsanevas [2] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12877939oldid=108324487 [3] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12877939 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station [5] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10369016 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap [7] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1754535 On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference. BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time.. It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to be called revenge editing. Please don't make this sort of comment again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the word butthurt is unworthy of serious attention. I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about man statements in her article. I do, at a minimum, share some of the broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone. When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone might create a revenge BLP, people responded that you were obviously joking. It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down the potential impact). I will add that I don't see for what purpose you were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from. Given your prior outreach activities, ranging from Pricasso to the Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect. As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco. That is precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as promoting it. It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare Streisand effect; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff (adapted from a real case); and see also http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En userpage). Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Ira, Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable. Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold no responsibility for. If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing with media. What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and it will make you look in the future. Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that New York Magazine still sucks. Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how sScientologist/s Wikipediologist-like. It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira. For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system. Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they have been slighted. Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project, Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station,[4] which now has articles on 33 projects.[5] On the flipside, Pine Gap,[6] has an article on only 7 projects.[7] Interesting
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
(man statements -- many statements) On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the word butthurt is unworthy of serious attention. I was not present at the conference while the newspaper reporter was (or at least not in the same place), so I have no personal knowledge about man statements in her article. I do, at a minimum, share some of the broader criticisms of its emphasis and its tone. When I pointed out that I was concerned by your suggestion that someone might create a revenge BLP, people responded that you were obviously joking. It now appears that you were quite serious, and in fact that you actually raised the prospect with the reporter (albeit trying to play down the potential impact). I will add that I don't see for what purpose you were interacting with the reporter at all, at least on the specific subject of the New York Wikiconference, which you were thousands of miles from. Given your prior outreach activities, ranging from Pricasso to the Encyclopedia Britannica, I find your motivations to be suspect. As for the broader topic of revenge editing, it is certainly a serious issue, as we were all reminded by last year's Qworty fiasco. That is precisely why I asked you not to say something that could be read as promoting it. It is less clear whether the specific example you cite is an example of within-wiki revenge editing, or the broader issue of people who bring privacy-seeking lawsuits losing their privacy as a result (compare Streisand effect; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_examples_for_discussion#Example_3:_The_Target_Becomes_the_Plaintiff (adapted from a real case); and see also http://openjurist.org/8/f3d/1222/haynes-v-alfred-a-knopf-incorporated (7th Cir. 1995, Posner, J.), discussed in my BLP talk linked on my En userpage). Newyorkbrad On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Ira, Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable. Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt over the fact that basically the only report on the conference in the media has painted a picture you would have preferred not to be painted, but don't take that out on me -- this is one painting I hold no responsibility for. If you want reports that paint a glowing picture of the Cult of Wikipediology, hire a publicist, don't let the media in, and certainly don't let the media talk to people who, by all accounts, shouldn't be doing so due to incompetence -- not everyone is capable of dealing with media. What is interesting is that immediately after you posted this, you raced over to en.wp and posted what you did. But you should have stopped and thought about how ridiculous this could make you look, and it will make you look in the future. Firstly, Risker stated that the reporter set up Rutherford, Rutherford said that the reporter lied, Isarra said that the reporter basically created a tense situationhell Siko even stated on Gendergap that New York Magazine still sucks. Ira, you push the line that BLP applies on all WMF projects; you do realise that this list is hosted on WMF servers, and therefore both Risker and Rutherford have engaged in gross BLP violating accusations. But you stayed silent on thathow quaint...how sScientologist/s Wikipediologist-like. It's disturbing that Rutherford stated that there were discussions about how to deal with her report, because all of the comments Wikipediologists so far on this list leads me to think that they would likely deal with it the same way Wikipediologists deal with others who dare to stray from or mock the Wikipediology doctrine -- that being attack, attack, attack! And this is something you excel at Ira. For the record Ira, I have been in touch with the reporter a few times, and she has told me, that like the Avicii interview, she recorded the entire conversation and she stands by her report. So will New York Magazine when they review her recorded conversation, if Wikipediologists wanted to make her report an issue. What you may not have seen about the Avicii report is that the reporter was vindicated in the end, simply because the conversation was recorded. I also told her that she would probably be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and that she has no need to be worried if one were created -- people generally do edit in an NPOV way. She has faith in that system. Now on your other comments, and it's one which Pete Forsyth touched on --- Wikipediologists do have a history of creating articles when they have been slighted. Take Theodore Katsanevas,[1] for example. Prior to the news of him suing a Greek Wikipedia editor, he had a bio article on one project, Greek Wikipedia.[2] He now has an article on 18 projects.[3] It's the same thing with Pierre-sur-Haute military
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference. BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time.. It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to be called revenge editing. Please don't make this sort of comment again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
NewYorkBrad, How is your commenting on it better than Russavia commenting on it? I am pretty sure everybody who takes the time to join an email list like this would agree, starting an article for retaliatory reasons is an abhorrent practice. But surely you can't be claiming it doesn't happen? If it happens on our sites, and is a problem, how can mentioning it be forbidden? That doesn't seem like a wise policy to me. I will grant that Russavia used a higher degree of snark than I would have personally chosen. But if snark is going to be against the rules around here...well, I'll put it this way -- I'll be interested to see how that transition goes. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia, despite the smilie, your last comment suggests that someone would create a biography of a living person in retaliation for the fact that she wrote unflatteringly and made errors in a piece about the Wikiconference. BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time.. It is also undesirable to provide ammunition for the (sometimes, unfortunately, accurate) perception that being the subject of a Wikipedia article is something that people should fear, nor that we would, even jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to be called revenge editing. Please don't make this sort of comment again. Thanks, Newyorkbrad/IBM On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
As someone who usually wears a suit and tie to Wikimedia events when I go (Hong Kong last year was the exception to that for the most part, way too humid), my advice to people would be to wear whatever the hell you feel comfortable in, subject to the normal standards of decency and the local climate. If you feel comfortable in a hoodie, then wear one. If you feel comfortable in a tie and monocle, then go right ahead. Picking on people for their choice of clothes at a conference seems awfully petty to me. Ultimately, you'll contribute more and be able to absorb more from others if you're not worrying about how tight your tie is or fretting over whether you'll be asked to leave for violating a dress code. Cheers, Craig That Guy In A Suit Franklin On 8 June 2014 15:50, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: And I associate hoodies with people wanting to keep their heads warm. -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of edward Sent: 07 June 2014 04:37 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media On 07/06/2014 15:18, Fæ wrote: So good luck to pizza stained t-shirts, wear them with pride. See my previous post. I thought the point was not that they had pizza stained t-shirts, but rather that the Wikipedian who was interviewed (Kevin) was explicitly dividing his kin into those who wear such stained shorts, and those who dress in a 'chill' way, which as Mr McBride explains, means 'cool and hip'. these [i.e. volunteers wearing hoodies] are the people most likely to make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the Wikimedia movement. I don't see what the 'hoodie' bit has to do with it. I associate 'hoodies' with people who want to remain anonymous, possibly to escape the attention of police, government agents or other responsible members of the enforcement community charged with keeping the world safe from terrorism or violence. Why would such people make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the Wikimedia movement? I'm puzzled. , E ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7638 - Release Date: 06/07/14 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-06-04/Op-ed Martin 2014-06-08 12:35 GMT+02:00 edward edw...@logicmuseum.com: On 08/06/2014 11:28, Chris Keating wrote: It's interesting how much this thread reinforces what Sumana said in her keynote at the conference! Chris What did Sumana say in her keynote at the conference? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: MZMcBride, et al On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:17 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 zhoris...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 risker...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 petefors...@gmail.com: 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 zhoris...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 petefors...@gmail.com 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 zhoris...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Tomasz, et al On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 07/06/2014 15:18, Fæ wrote: So good luck to pizza stained t-shirts, wear them with pride. See my previous post. I thought the point was not that they had pizza stained t-shirts, but rather that the Wikipedian who was interviewed (Kevin) was explicitly dividing his kin into those who wear such stained shorts, and those who dress in a 'chill' way, which as Mr McBride explains, means 'cool and hip'. these [i.e. volunteers wearing hoodies] are the people most likely to make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the Wikimedia movement. I don't see what the 'hoodie' bit has to do with it. I associate 'hoodies' with people who want to remain anonymous, possibly to escape the attention of police, government agents or other responsible members of the enforcement community charged with keeping the world safe from terrorism or violence. Why would such people make a meaningful difference to open knowledge within the Wikimedia movement? I'm puzzled. , E ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character? Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious ones the journalist asked him (but please off-list). Or do you want to hit on him (or claim your disgust) if it comes out that he said roughly what was printed although the situation was differently than told by the journalist and he meant it differently what he has already confirmed? This cannot be useful on this list either. This is not a trial. Who are we to demand the truth here? … I met him for five minutes in Berlin and don't know him onwiki, so will this story (whose common theme I still cannot find—is it really just giving some quotes here and then said?) create or change my impression on him? No, not at all. I haven't been there, I cannot judge the situation, even if this or that party tells me their impressions. I should not even do this, this is not my task and if I have an impression why is it important that others know about it? The journalist had her “story” (and as far as I know journalists, they emphasize the most stupid things one can imagine [if that counts, my lumberjack shirt should be notable for Wikipedia as often as journalists made fun of it 9.9]), Kevin already said that words were taken out of (a non-serious) context, misinterpreted, etc. What do I have to know more about this story? Nothing. Next story please. Cheers, Martin 2014-06-07 16:30 GMT+02:00 edward edw...@logicmuseum.com: 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: I'm combining responses to edward and Fae and then heading to the pool. B-) Fae wrote: * 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. This feels like a strange question to ask. Aren't you asking specifically who the conference organizers were and how many of them were volunteers? I think https://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Organizing_Team answers this question. http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Organizing_Team (for the record, i attended the conference as a volunteer and 100% paid for myself ... no scholarship, nothing, and think that's the case for most attendees) Cheers, Katie MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- @wikimediadc / @wikidata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Martin Rulsch martin.rul...@wikimedia.de wrote: And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character? Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious ones the journalist asked him (but please off-list). Or do you want to hit on him (or claim your disgust) if it comes out that he said roughly what was printed although the situation was differently than told by the journalist and he meant it differently what he has already confirmed? This cannot be useful on this list either. This is not a trial. Who are we to demand the truth here? … I met him for five minutes in Berlin and don't know him onwiki, so will this story (whose common theme I still cannot find—is it really just giving some quotes here and then said?) create or change my impression on him? No, not at all. I haven't been there, I cannot judge the situation, even if this or that party tells me their impressions. I should not even do this, this is not my task and if I have an impression why is it important that others know about it? The journalist had her “story” (and as far as I know journalists, they emphasize the most stupid things one can imagine [if that counts, my lumberjack shirt should be notable for Wikipedia as often as journalists made fun of it 9.9]), Kevin already said that words were taken out of (a non-serious) context, misinterpreted, etc. What do I have to know more about this story? Nothing. Next story please. Cheers, Martin With Martin on this one. Having answers to did he really say that?? isn't relevant for this list. Edward is obviously free to contact Kevin directly to keep asking, and no one else is likely to answer either way. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/06/2014, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: (for the record, i attended the conference as a volunteer and 100% paid for myself ... no scholarship, nothing, and think that's the case for most attendees) Could one of the conference organizers provide the totals for two measures to avoid speculation and hearsay: 1. The proportion of women attendees. 2. The total number of unpaid volunteers taking part AND The total number of employees attending as volunteers AND The total number of employees being paid to support the conference. My original question seemed simple to me. These are basic statistics that any Wikimedia conference registration process should be able to provide without compromising anyone's privacy. As has been raised before, giving a figure of 50 volunteers attended this conference looks peculiar, and potentially misleadingly political, when someone can afterwards point out that 15 out of the 50 were Chapter and Foundation employees or contractors whether they were being paid for their time to attend or not. I am sure detailed reporting will come, but please give the organizers some time. Just some observations... There were just a handful of WMF staff there, and no chapter employees (afaik, except myself who did not attend in that capacity). number of employees being paid to support the conference is zero, unless you want to count the venue staff for security, etc. Please note that the venue was donated at no cost to Wikimedia, and there were a number of other sponsors who sponsored the evening reception at the conference. details: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_US-NYC/WikiConference_USA_2014#Budget_and_resources about the gender diversity, it's just a guesstimate but i'd say ~35-40% women in attendance. (i think conference reporting will provide more stats) Cheers, Katie Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- @wikimediadc / @wikidata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: * 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. I would like to answer this question first, as it has a really simple answer. There were exactly 0 employees on the organizing committee, and exactly 0 employees who did the preparation. This was an entirely volunteer-run conference. Thanks, Pharos On 07/06/2014, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- fae...@gmail.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
Fae: if you didn't know, US chapters don't have any permanent paid employees whatsoever, and only one temp contractor between either chapter - and he was only hired a few days ago, and to help manage one specific project. So no chapter employees from the US attended as employees, since none exist. I'm not sure if any overseas chapter employees attended, but even if they did, it would be a bit unusual for them to have directly participated in planning the conference. I'm sure there was some WMF staff overhead involved in handling the grant for the conference and for those that attended, but doubt it was that hugely significant. I'm not sure where you would get the idea that a high proportion of registered attendees were WMF or chapter employees, let alone why you would think they handled most of the conference prep. - Kevin Gorman -sent from my mobile On Saturday, June 7, 2014, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: * 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. I would like to answer this question first, as it has a really simple answer. There were exactly 0 employees on the organizing committee, and exactly 0 employees who did the preparation. This was an entirely volunteer-run conference. Thanks, Pharos On 07/06/2014, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com javascript:; 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe -- fae...@gmail.com javascript:; 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 07/06/2014, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote: ... This was an entirely volunteer-run conference. Thanks Pharos. My question was about proportions of attendees being women or employees, rather than who organized it. I should have avoided the subsequent comment, as that appears to have taken us on a tangent (by the way, I think paying someone to help project manage conferences is an excellent use of donated funds, it is the sort of thing that is likely to cause volunteer stress and burn-out). Aude's email (Sat Jun 7 16:12:35 UTC 2014) has confirmed that at least one attendee was an employee, so the answer to that question cannot be zero. To avoid confusion, please refer to my email where I explain what was being asked: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072566.html Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 7 June 2014 13:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/06/2014, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote: ... This was an entirely volunteer-run conference. Thanks Pharos. My question was about proportions of attendees being women or employees, rather than who organized it. I should have avoided the subsequent comment, as that appears to have taken us on a tangent (by the way, I think paying someone to help project manage conferences is an excellent use of donated funds, it is the sort of thing that is likely to cause volunteer stress and burn-out). Aude's email (Sat Jun 7 16:12:35 UTC 2014) has confirmed that at least one attendee was an employee, so the answer to that question cannot be zero. Hold onso now you are saying that someone employed by a WMF chapter or the WMF itself will never be allowed to be considered anything other than an employee? Fae, if they're paying their own way, they are there as volunteers, not employees. If they have not been directed to attend by their employer, they are volunteers. Not everyone does everything for work-related purposes, and a very significant proportion of Wikimedians who work for a chapter or the WMF also make volunteer contributions in many ways to WMF projects. This is a good thing, and shouldn't result in them being slammed for attending Wikimedia-related events on their own time spending their own money, as the nature of the question implies. If they didn't register as employee of Chapter xx or employee of WMF, and their employer hasn't paid for their registration, there is absolutely no reason for them to be considered employees during their attendance. I do not believe that gender is a mandatory question on any registrations for any WMF projects, and I question whether or not it's an appropriate one unless there is some specific reason to ask (e.g., accommodation arrangements). Therefore, there is no accurate method to assess the number of women who attended. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
aude wrote: On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: This feels like a strange question to ask. Aren't you asking specifically who the conference organizers were and how many of them were volunteers? I think https://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Organizing_Team answers this question. http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Organizing_Team Indeed, thank you! (Firefox has an annoying habit of dropping the protocol when copying and pasting URLs and I now have https://; in my muscle memory.) aude also wrote: Please note that the venue was donated at no cost to Wikimedia, and there were a number of other sponsors who sponsored the evening reception at the conference. I loved the venue. I thought it was spacious and pretty and in a decent area of town and the wifi seemed to be stable and fast for me. I also really liked having open space scheduled concurrently with all of the speaking sessions. This is something I think we should encourage at every editathon or hackathon or meetup. Having presentations and keynotes and whatever else is nice and all, but people at all types of meetups should also have the ability to meet up. It's difficult to do that when you're in a room where you can't speak. :-) The dedicated open space provided a really nice solution to this, in my opinion. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 07/06/2014 22:27, Fæ wrote: If leading members of our movement are going to adamantly refuse to even count the numbers of women participating at events and so fail to openly and transparently report the statistics, then I guess the only defence we have when criticised by journalists is to close our eyes and plug our ears until they go away. Perhaps I'm being stupid but the photo on this page http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Main_Page says Most of the speakers, organizers, and attendees of the WikiConference USA 2014 at the New York Law School. A quick and dirty count suggests 110 people in the photo, of whom 40 I can identify as women. , Ed ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
On 6/7/2014 2:27 PM, Fæ wrote: To all feminists reading this, do you want to be counted or not? Sometimes marginalized minorities find it beneficial to be counted, sometimes they don't. When they're being subjected to mockery, hectoring, and aggressive interrogation, it's very often the latter. Fae, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, but if you support the notion of improving gender dynamics in the Wikimedia movement, you have an incredibly counterproductive way of going about it. Or maybe you think things are just fine the way they are. --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media (Tim Davenport)
In regards to Fae's query about gender participation at the NYC conference. I counted 37 females of 89 individuals in an official group photo of participants up on Commons, or 41.6%. I offer no opinion if any of those I counted at women were transexual. It was a simple count. From a very cursory peek at photos of the opening day crowd for the keynote, it seems that total attendance was probably in the 125-ish range. I am not sure if those who appeared in the group photo were a representative, random sample of participants, but they were a majority of those who were there, it would seem. I think we could say that about 40% of conference participants were female. That this is not a question asked of registrants is a bit of an absurdity for an organization obsessed with the gender gap at En-WP, in my opinion. tim Tim Davenport /// Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR, USA ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
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 z...@mzmcbride.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA in the media
MZMcBride, et al On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 9:17 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
