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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



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

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

Reply via email to