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 journalists could make the majority of "issues" on Wikipedia look interesting: the biggest issues internally are so far inside baseball that even most Wikimedians don't get them.
Example: Despite a vast amount of effort, the overwhelming majority of "news" articles relating to the monkey selfie really missed the point of the copyright issue that was at the heart of the discussion. And even those that seemed to get the point still treated the subject as "Wikipedia being copyright wonks to the point of 'stealing' money out of the pocket of a real photographer". No, I don't have a great deal of faith in journalists to get things right. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 22:31, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 had > a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia: > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ > > > http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ > > This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about: > > > http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/ > > There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been > heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo > chamber, muffled by nay-sayers. > > Those stories *should* be heard. > > Andreas > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 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 blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where >>> women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the >>> existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men >>> pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men >>> arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and >>> so forth. >>> >>> It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could >>> probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. >>> As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, >>> and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1] >>> >>> A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and >>> academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this >>> mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and >>> Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will >>> comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you >>> can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format. >>> >>> Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing >>> discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y >>> Combinator: >>> >>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173 >>> >>> [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey < >>> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that >>>> out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting >>>> done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a >>>> Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other >>>> Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc < >>>> carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity >>>>> >>>>> http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/ >>>>> >>>>> This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the >>>>> Gender Gap task force. >>>>> >>>>> Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged >>>>> sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll >>>>> behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job >>>>> or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong >>>>> troll by trying to comply with policy. >>>>> >>>>> And the absurdities continue.... >>>>> >>>>> CM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
