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>
