I mostly agree. On one hand, it's always nice to see a detailed description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other, this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully pulpit to grind it in public. - J On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Jonathan T. Morgan Community Research Lead Wikimedia Foundation User:Jmorgan (WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jmorgan_(WMF)> jmorgan(a)wikimedia.org

While I agree that the article is overly negative (likely because of the individual experience), I think it still points to an important problem. I don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of image. Maybe naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because the community is not ideal. pundit On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Kerry Raymond &lt;kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- __________________________ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge

I think feminists, especially those who take an interest in STEM, will pass this article around. Sydney On Dec 12, 2014 5:35 PM, "Andrew Lih" &lt;andrew.lih(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

We have problems, I don't dispute that. But "ugly and bitter as 4chan"? That has to be an exaggeration. Regards Jonathan Cardy

Perhaps it depends on what part of the encyclopedia? Has anyone attempted to characterize how the editing environment varies with different subject matter? I often run across descriptions that don't comport with either my experience, or that of people I've interviewed, but it's hard to tell precisely why. I've encountered quite different beliefs about what the en.wikipedia community is like, even among people who to me seem to otherwise have a similar background. Entirely anecdotally, areas of interest seem to be one correlated factor. For example, writing an article on an archaeological site (one thing I've mentored new editors in doing) is by and large trouble-free and friendly, in my experience. But some other areas are not. I haven't attempted to characterize that factor in any detail. -Mark WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: -- Sent with my mu4e

It has resurfaced here in Australia http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/14/comment-will-editing-disputes- mean-end-wikipedia Nothing to do with me, I should add. Kerry _____ From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Oliver Keyes Sent: Wednesday, 17 December 2014 12:04 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] commentary on Wikipedia's community behaviour (Aaron gets a quote) I think area of focus is likely to be a big factor. There's a stereotype, for example, of new page patrollers as particularly uncaring and harried: when we surveyed patrollers, and compared the results to the surveys of the overall editing population, we found that the major demographic difference or difference in priorities is simply that new page patrollers patrol new pages. So where people choose to work definitely plays a part. And, anecdotally, there are some areas that just attract combative individuals and so become less-pleasant for those who (quite rightly) don't want to tolerate that - articles around Israel/Palestine, for example, or the Balkans. At the end of the day, though, it's the people who make the environments unpleasant just as much as it is the environments altering the people. On 15 December 2014 at 23:28, mjn &lt;mjn(a)anadrome.org&gt; wrote: Perhaps it depends on what part of the encyclopedia? Has anyone attempted to characterize how the editing environment varies with different subject matter? I often run across descriptions that don't comport with either my experience, or that of people I've interviewed, but it's hard to tell precisely why. I've encountered quite different beliefs about what the en.wikipedia community is like, even among people who to me seem to otherwise have a similar background. Entirely anecdotally, areas of interest seem to be one correlated factor. For example, writing an article on an archaeological site (one thing I've mentored new editors in doing) is by and large trouble-free and friendly, in my experience. But some other areas are not. I haven't attempted to characterize that factor in any detail. -Mark WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: That has to be an exaggeration. wrote: pass this article around. will make it through the entire story. There's a lot of jargon and insider intrigue such that I could imagine most people never making past the typewriter barf of "BLP, AGF, NOR" :) &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; wrote: the individual experience), I think it still points to an important problem. I don't perceive this article as really problematic in terms of image. Maybe naively, I imagine that people will not stop donating because the community is not ideal. &lt;kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: to know how they are made. It is not good to have negative publicity like that during the annual donation campaign (irrespective of the motivations of the journalist and/or the rights/wrongs of the issue being reported, neither of which I intend to debate here). As a donation-funded organisation, public perception matters a lot. behaviour (Aaron gets a quote) description of how wiki-sausage gets made in a major venue. On the other, this journalist clearly has a personal axe to grind, and used his bully pulpit to grind it in public. &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge -- Sent with my mu4e _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation