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 spot in a very awkward situation. I feel badly
for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia
and
the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet. We
all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
sources in our articles.
Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
