[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has PR Problems

[Marc Riddell]

> on 5/14/08 8:45 PM, Mark Nilrad at marknilrad at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> If someone uninvolved with Wikipedia was following the news on Wikipedia,
>> what
>> kind of headlines on the news articles about Wikipedia would he see? More or
>> less, he would see: "Jimbo Wales Financial Troubles/Philandering"
>> (and...sexual exploits, and some troubling issues with his ex's article),
>> "Village in Englad falls to Vandalism (about vandalism, which was immediately
>> reverted after the story came out, to a page, which is now significantly
>> improved, about an English village)  "Parents of High Schoolers Criticize
>> Wikipedia" (relative to the threats posted to the HS in California's page),
>> "How Wikipedia Can Rip You Off" (based on a completely uninformed blog post,
>> but it was on the front page of Yahoo), "Pro-Israel group slanting
>> Wikipedia"...on and on the list goes. It's amazing how much bad news get
>> around about Wikipedia.
>> 
>> (A footnote: It doesn't help that the reporters can't even get their facts
>> right. The LA Times article about the threats on the HS page got fact wrong.
>> The article quoting J.B Murray about WP:MMM was egregiously inaccurate. It is
>> extremely ironic that Wikipedia is viewed in the public eye and lambasted in
>> academic circles as inaccurate, yet the very article about it (from websites
>> that are supposed to be accurate) sometimes contain numerous errors.)
>> 
>> I really think that the PR problems have to do with the public's fundamental
>> misconceptions about Wikipedia. If you can stretch your memory to remember
>> yourself as a newbie, then you will remember the confusion you faced. There
>> were all sorts acronyms being used (AGF, COI, ANI, etc.), names of prominent
>> Wikipedians being tossed around, and you were confused. Wikipedia definitely
>> has a very steep learning curve.
>> 
>> Most new users attempt to write something they know about, and they don't
>> know
>> the first thing about formatting, referencing (don't even talk about the
>> MOS),
>> and usually their articles or contributions get speedy deleted or flagged,
>> and
>> they get warned. The official policy is WP:BITE (another abbreviation), but
>> in
>> practice, we "Dracula" the newbies all the time, even if we are patient and
>> polite (and a lot of veterans aren't).
>> 
>> Many of this comes because people don't understand the really, really complex
>> rules of Wikipedia. To illustrate, take a look at the (very few) web pages
>> that are more visited than Wikipedia. You've got search engines, with extra
>> features (Google, Yahoo, MSN), an auction site (Ebay), and other site.
>> Basically, they are websites that are quite simple to use. Meanwhile
>> Wikipedia
>> just blows new users away, almost literally. It is definitely not what you
>> would call "user-friendly".
>> 
>> However, beyond the complex rules (which, by the way, I'm not complaining
>> about; they are usually great, and necessary; however, they are undeniably
>> hard to learn quickly for new users), there are the news stories, as I said
>> above. It really amazes me that Wikipedia can have so much bad press, yet
>> everything goes on as usual.
>> 
>> (Another footnote: One of the latest of bad reports is that Wikipedia is a
>> "porn-peddler". One of the main images they mentioned was the "Virgin
>> Killer".
>> The image was nominated for deletion, and it the result was an overwhelming
>> keep, per policy. I'm not going to argue with the policies, but I think that
>> if it is true that the FBI is investigating if Wikipedia is violating
>> child-porn law, then the image should be taken down. It really doesn't matter
>> what the policy is, keeping it gives the impression that Wikipedia consists
>> of
>> a bunch of pedophilists and stubborn law-breakers who won't listen to common
>> sense. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an EDUCATIONAL tool (and the
>> Wikimedia spokesman said that they were Wikipedia "target group"), and Virgin
>> Killer.jpg cannot even be defined as being educational.)
>> 
>> So, what am I saying? I don't know; perhaps this means that all the bad news
>> is an indicator that Wikipedia is now too big for any one event or person
>> (even the omnipotent Jimbo Wales) to affect. However, I think it may prove
>> the
>> opposite: I really don't think that Wikipedia can get so much bad press and
>> continue as usual.

on 5/16/08 7:44 AM, Marc Riddell at michaeldavid86 at comcast.net wrote:
>> 
> This is what you get when the product is more highly regarded than the
> people.
> 
> Here is a recent quote in the media by Jimmy Wales:
> 
> "Given enough time, humans will screw up Wikipedia just as they have screwed
> up everything else, but so far it's not too bad."
> 
> If it does continue as usual, it simply will not continue.
> 
I should have added this to my original post:

http://www.news.com/8301-13953_3-9945028-80.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547
-1_3-0-20

Marc