Apologies if this has come up before; this is an article from April
2006, published in "Campaigns and Elections" magazine, which describes
itself as a magazine for campaign consultants.
(http://www.campaignline.com/). I've excerpted the article below,
leaving in the important part where he tells campaign managers how to
influence Wikipedia, for better or worse. Hmm.
If you have access to the Expanded Academic database, the full text is
in there.
-- phoebe
------
The Wikipedia dilemma. Michael Cornfield.
Campaigns & Elections 27.3 (April 2006): p50(1).
Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2006 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
"Congressional staffers have tried to airbrush and deface it. The
Chinese government has tried to block access to it. Old-line
journalists resent it, while new-line journalists rely on it."
"'It'" is Wikipedia, the real-time online encyclopedia with close to
one million English-language entries that any Internet user, more or
less, can contribute to and edit. Wikipedia is the latest addition to
the online campaigning toolbox. While it has been around for five
years, its readership has now reached critical mass. According to
Alexa.com, it has been the 22nd most visited site on the Web in the
last three months."
[more introductory materia]
....
"It's the composition along with the size of the mass that makes
Wikipedia increasingly important for campaigners. People who go to
Wikipedia often do so to put themselves in a position to say something
knowledgeable to others. In other words, Wikipedia users are opinion
leaders."
....
[goes on to describe the Wikipedia entry for Mark Kennedy, noting one
biased paragraph, where Kennedy is noted as a supporter of the war on
Iraq]
"No such biased paragraph (pro or con) appeared on the entry of
Kennedy's leading opponent at the moment, DFLer Amy Klobuchar. And no
warning box appeared at the top of Kennedy's entry, as may be found at
the entry "Minnesota U.S. Senate Election 2006," which advises users
that what follows is "likely to contain information of a speculative
nature."
....
"The paragraph attacking Kennedy is accurate and mild compared with
some things that have surfaced on political entries. Some may
interpret it as a sign of Wikipedia's liberal media bias. To me, it's
a sign that the Kennedy campaign hasn't been as active on Wikipedia as
it should be. The Kennedy entry ranked eighth on the Google search
return page for his name, by the way.
"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia as a campaign research tool
ought to be that you: get a second source to ascertain the accuracy of
what you read. Wikipedia links you to a few sites where you can find
that second source, but there are facts which need offline
investigation too. Wikipedia does not post original research, and
professional campaigners need to conduct that sometimes, especially
regarding a client's bio and signature issues.
"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia to influence the influencers is
to: get in early and stay active. Make sure you consult the "talk" and
"history" tabs to learn who is in the editorial room for an entry and
what they are saying. Insert indexing categories to cross-link crucial
entries; every category is a potential portal to additional
supporters. (The "What Links Here" link in the "Toolbox" is a good
guide to these geographic, demographic, issue-related and other
intellectual bridges; there were 40 in-links for Kennedy's entry.) If
you detect a flaw in the entry of a client, opponent or key topic,
change it. If the change doesn't stick, enter a dispute notice at the
top of the entry, follow the prescribed rules for content, and perhaps
alert mainstream media gatekeepers in your campaign arena to the fact
that you're involved in a Wikipedia dispute.
"The community of self-titled "Wikipedians" really strives for a
neutral point of view. They have established a Counter Vandalism Unit.
They freeze entries, excise content, expose malefactors and most
importantly maintain a public record of what gets said and done on the
site. Wikipedia is, over time and with your cooperative input, less
susceptible to personal, institutional and monetary biases than just
about any other forum in campaignland. It is dull and picayune in
places, but a force for moderation, truth and reason in politics."
ADVICE BY MICHAEL CORNFIELD
On 5 Jun 2006 at 00:08, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are
> they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
The "cutesie sigs" problems seems to be like the userbox problem all
over again... once again you have a bunch of users who seem to be
treating Wikipedia like another Myspace or LiveJournal, and another
bunch of editors/admins who are so offended by this that they insist
on taking draconian action against the first group... and then both
groups escalate matters and get much more heated-up about it than the
whole silly issue deserves.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
---- George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> What worries me is the apparent prevailing opinion that this is such a
> terrible, serious problem. I don't see it that way, based on my prior
> internet experience. I don't see it that way, based on the cases I
> have seen on Wikipedia in the last year. I don't see it as necessary
> to exaggerate how serious a problem it is, to justify continuing to
> remove the material and block or ban accounts which post it.
English poet Thomas Gray: “Where ignorance is bliss, / ‘Tis folly to be wise.’”
Sydney Poore aka FloNight
For those who have not yet seen it:
----
http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past
Roy Rosenzweig
This article was originally published in The Journal of American
History Volume 93, Number 1 (June, 2006): 117-46.
----
Interesting reading, nice and long and chewy.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lauder-Frost has been stubbed
following an OTRS query
https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=…
This article originally stated that Lauder-Frost was cleared on appeal
of charges of theft. This turns out to be a lie: he was convicted.
His supporters assert that the theft may now not be mentioned
(although they were perfectly happy for the lie to be in there, it
seems), because it is a "spent" conviction under the rehabilitation of
offenders act. This appears to be a novel interpretation, since the
text of the act as posted to Talk only prevents publication with
malicious intent.
They have argued long and hard for removal of this conviction from the
article. I do not think neutral biography can omit it.
Lauder-Frost has had his solicitors write to one editor (who made no
significant edits to the article as far as I can see) and has
contacted the Foundation; Brad is involved. User Sussexman has been
blocked for alluding to these legal threats before they were made - he
is clearly in contact with Lauder-Frost.
I think they are gaming the system. They wanted a long puff piece
about Lauder-Frost, when it was trimmed and the truth of his
conviction added they wanted it deleted.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.ukhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Quite right. I changed all my IM accounts to some variation of
nathanrdotcom in 2002 after dealing with a lot of harassment.
At the time I registered here on Wikipedia, User:Nathan was taken.
I've had the same Wikipedia username since February and nobody's commented
on it until now. I think it's perfectly fine and there's only one person
with a problem with it. I'm hardly co-opting Wikipedia for my own personal
gain nor am I in any way disrupting it to advertise (I'm aware of WP:NOT).
It would be different if my username was..let's say.. nathanr.com or
www.nathanr.com, then that would be blatant advertising, but it's not and
it isn't.
- Nathan (User:nathanrdotcom)
Will wrote:
I had a friend who's email address was (let's call her Jane)
janedotcodotuk at aol.co.uk.
And in Nathan's case, Nathan and Nathanr was already taken.
Hi all,
There's been lots of whingeing lately about evil admins taking over.
Just wanted to say, I still love Wikipedia, and spend hours there
every day. I do quite a lot of editing on an extremely diverse range
of subjects, and participate in a broad range of Wikipedia community
activities, of which WP:FPC and WP:DYK are probably my favourites. I
come into contact with lots of different editors, and by and large, I
think they're great, and the vast majority that I encounter are well
and truly there to build an encyclopaedia.
In my 4000 or so edits, I've had the misfortune to witness one or two
petty fights, but rarely get involved. I don't think I've been the
victim of any serious personal attacks, and have only once witnessed
blatant, sustained POV-pushing. I've never been on the wrong end of
admin misdeeds, and with only two minor exceptions, I think they do a
great job.
I adore browsing random topics, splitting and merging articles as
needed, and generally trying to organise information to make it as
useful as possible.
There probably are all sorts of tensions going on at the talk pages of
major pages, but there are so many topics that still don't even have
articles (Les Bidochon, one of France's more well-known comic strips
is one), so it's easy to avoid those problems - if one wants to.
Just a dose of WikiLove for you all :)
Steve
stevertigo. Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:11:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture
>which respects NPOV or we do not.
We don't. We have policies and guidelines... but the
admins who close AFDs don't read them, and if they
do they don't act on them. We have a deletion process
that is deliberately opaque and awkward to prevent
people from using it and getting the idea that deleting
anything from WIkipedia is a good thing.
We also have large chunks of Wikipedia with hardly
any editors applying the basic rules of Wikipedia.
These areas are controlled by organised groups
who make Wiki-life extremely difficult for anyone
who tries to clean it up. Editors with the best
intentions but without the stomach for a fight try their
best and end up being driven off after being
reported for vandalism or 3RR violations, or
just being wiki-stalked and hassled on any
article they edit.
To clean up these areas, any legitimate editor
has to have the patience of a saint and an
encylopedic (heh) knowledge of the Wikipedia
rules system. He's got to be able to put up with the
most extreme provocation and obvious bad faith...
all the while smiling sweetly and assuming good
faith while dozens of sock-puppets play stupid
games. He's got to have the support of a group
of editors, or a tame admin, to help him out too.
Naturally, most editors don't have this. So the
way Wikipedia is set up right now, under the
auspices of welcoming newbies, is a vandal
paradise that treats legitimate editors
as an endless renewable resource. it uses them
up and throws them away by giving them little or
no support and instead it defends the rights of
vandals to edit. It even makes the finding out
of who is socking up a tedious and officious
process... just for that extra kick in the teeth
for legitimate editors who do play by the rules
and are faced with those who don't.
In summary, the system is broken. But you won't
get any sense on this mailing list, because most
of the people here don't actually edit Wikipedia
these days. They just pontificate and have faith
in some mystical power of the Wiki.
Looks like we suddenly have another big change to monobook, with all
the unicode symbols below the edit box being reformatted to involve
hide/show buttons. However, they're still all lumped together, unlike
at other Wikipedias like the French one, and unlike the brief trial
that occurred on en.
Similarly, a few days ago it looked like a new warning appeared when
you create a new page, that advertising etc will be harshly removed.
Is there a way of being notified of these changes before they suddenly appear?
Steve
> "Alphax wrote:
>>Cobb wrote:
>> Some of the pontificators here should throw themselves back into editing
>> from a newbie's point of view. Pick some craphole area of Wikipedia and
>> try editing, and imagine that you don't know anyone else... don't have
>> tame admin buddies to call on. Imagine facing up to a group of editors
>> who know the ins and outs of the process and how to game it. It might
>> wake some people up.
>
>I wonder how the people with "tame admin buddies" got that way?
>Not possibly from being Good Editors perhaps?
I was talking about new editors, and how we drive them away... but then,
knowing that would require you to have actually read the post that you just
replied to. I know it's a burden, but it does make things go more smoothly.
>> The Wikipedia AFD process is complicated and crufty. Putting an article
>> up for AFD should be easy as adding {{afd|reason}} (don't make technical
>> arguments in response to this. I'm just telling you how it should work).
>> Putting something up for deletion should be almost as easy as creating a
>> new page.
> It is. Stick {{prod|reason}} on it.
The point was about AFD, not about prod. Prod tags can simply be
removed.
>> Currently the AFD process is obscure and technical. It doesn't help that
>> there are inclusionist editors who seem to want to make it as
>> unintuitive as possible and keep it that way, and frustrate any attempts
>> to change it.
>Calling someone an "inclusionist" or "deletionist" doesn't help.
Neither does avoiding the issue, which is eactly what you have just done.
>> JesseW wrote:
>> Also, as I mentioned above, we have a number of areas that are
>> well-patrolled by non-nutballs who *do* follow our polices and
>> guidelines, and editors who don't want to fight can also toil in those
>> areas, and leave the work of defending the articles against crazies to
>> others.
>
> And this is an argument against what? Some bits of Wikipedia aren't too
> bad, so that's ok.
>
> Could you rephrase that so it's coherent?
See above about reading the post properly before replying. What was his
point in relation to my post? That parts of wikipedia don't have nutball
editors? So what? My point was that we have policies that allow groups to
drive off any editor that tries to clean up the bad areas unless they happen
to
be experienced and hardened. The current system burns up and throws
away good new editors with its extreme tolerance of
idiots and vandals under some misguided notion of openness. We don't
need idiots... we need lots and lots of editors who want to help Wikipedia
be an encyclopedia. Policies/admins that defend idiots and frustrate and
drive off decent and sensible editors are wrong.