I do not disagree that offering to talk to the press is good.
I talk to press a moderate amount, on and off, in other fields (computing, alt.space company stuff). In some cases I know the press people, in other cases I have just talked to them one or more times.
When the discussion is about something where there is a percieved conflict, it's worthwhile finding out if the article is intended to be an honest coverage of the incident, or simply taking a side and publicizing it.
What came out was simply taking a side and publicizing it.
If you know going in to an interview, or should have known going in, that the piece is not going to try to present all sides, then it's not a "news" story, it's an opinion/feature piece. Some of those, it's probably not a good idea to participate in.
If the journalist already has a firm set opinion that something's wrong, engaging with them will often just give them more ammo. Especially if they think you're associated with the percieved "bad guy".
I don't suggest that we should do anything like a press blackout, even if we could. But I appeal to everyone's common sense. If the journalist in question is presenting dangerously unbalanced portrayals of the project, be careful talking to them, and consider not talking to them. Even if you tend to agree with what you think their viewpoint is.
Nobody wins when purient shit-stirring happens in the press regarding the project.
-george
On Dec 7, 2007 2:05 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation. The way to combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other side of the story out more effectively. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here helps.
On Dec 7, 2007 2:18 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the last one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
Daniel;
While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley,
I'm
somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever
edit
Wikipedia again.
Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register
thrives
on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of
the
project.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l