I think there's something of a lesson here for people: don't trust the
press.
The job of a journalist, these days, is to write stories that people will
pay to read. It is not to portray Wikimedia in the best possible light.
It is not to be your friend, and it is not to record an accurate and
impartial view of events. There is a reason that most organisations pay
for press contacts / spin doctors, and that reason is that journalists will
paint organisations in the worst possible light because that'll sell a few
extra papers. Yes, it stinks. No, there's not really anything to be done
about it.
Many journalists appear friendly, and outside of work, many of them are
decent people. But when they're on the clock, you need to be aware that
they'll quite happily 'misinterpret' a social interaction and draw the
conclusion that "Wikimedians = Social Shut-ins with no ability to talk to
girls" from that. So if you're at a conference with journalists about, act
accordingly. And it doesn't hurt to be a bit cynical when you read these
sort of stories, because it's usually a somewhat distorted and
sensationalised view of things that you're reading.
Cheers,
Craig
On 7 June 2014 17:41, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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 <zhorishna(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>