In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site
Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page.
Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap
effort – combining a
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen reporting on anything
Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
In
I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms (real
journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would be hard on
the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a hostile work
environment and I for one am tired of it.
Lightbreather
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014
The Resources page links to forty-eight mainstream and tech articles
with another 30 or 40 reprints or summaries of those in smaller
mainstream publications. The fourteen blog and other entries are just a
smattering of the higher quality blog and activist commentary on
Wikipedia. So there is
Anne,
That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched,
because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you
simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy
headline.
Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they
I'd disagree with you there, Andreas. A lot of journalism is badly
researched for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or
Wikimedia. It has to do with limited resources, the need to make a splashy
headline, and nowhere near enough sexy stuff. Not even the most fascinated