I am talking about these two articles here:
Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
I was quite surprised when I read Wikipedia's extremely casual response to the recent articles published in The Register.
There are a variety of trash "information" sites, "reviews", blogs etc. that attack Wikipedia. There is simply no time or resources to publish rebuttals to their nonsense.
Yours sincerely, David Monniaux
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The secret mailing list article has successfully convinced most people that all 1000 Wikipedia moderators were part of the "secret mailing list", and "the rank and file" are "on the verge of revolt". The second article (like the first one) has also made it to front-page on all the social news sites including Digg, Reddit and Slashdot. It has also convinced people that the Wikipedia moderators regularly block anybody who comes in their way. The blogs and forums are abuzz with the allegations of corruption rampant among Wikipedia moderators.
Wikipedia relies on public trust and donations. Wikipedia's refusal to respond to such serious allegatinons, and instead launch an ad-hominem attack on The Register by calling their articles "nonsense" reflects very badly on the site, esp. when others have praised The Register for its in-depth journalism. CNET has praised the article for proving that "the journalism still alive":
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13846_1-9831164-62.html
Wikipedia should take The Register allegations seriously, and respond seriously.
Best Regards, Dan
As expressed at the bottom of the e-mail you received, that person was definitely not a Wikipedia spokesperson. If you would like a more-official comment, please contact the Communications Manager for the Foundation, Sandra Ordonez, at sordonez[at]wikimedia(dot)org or the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ComCom.
Rest assured that the Communications Committee is definitely working hard on this very issue with lots of discussion taking place.
On Dec 9, 2007 6:06 AM, DanielMartin DanielMartin@goowy.com wrote:
I am talking about these two articles here:
Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/ Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
I was quite surprised when I read Wikipedia's extremely casual response to the recent articles published in The Register.
There are a variety of trash "information" sites, "reviews", blogs etc. that attack Wikipedia. There is simply no time or resources to publish rebuttals to their nonsense. Yours sincerely, David Monniaux
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The secret mailing list article has successfully convinced most people that all 1000 Wikipedia moderators were part of the "secret mailing list", and "the rank and file" are "on the verge of revolt". The second article (like the first one) has also made it to front-page on all the social news sites including Digg, Reddit and Slashdot. It has also convinced people that the Wikipedia moderators regularly block anybody who comes in their way. The blogs and forums are abuzz with the allegations of corruption rampant among Wikipedia moderators.
Wikipedia relies on public trust and donations. Wikipedia's refusal to respond to such serious allegatinons, and instead launch an ad-hominem attack on The Register by calling their articles "nonsense" reflects very badly on the site, esp. when others have praised The Register for its in-depth journalism. CNET has praised the article for proving that "the journalism still alive":
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13846_1-9831164-62.html
Wikipedia should take The Register allegations seriously, and respond seriously.
Best Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The second bit of that may be true (there are a lot of idiots in the world), but the first part simply isn't. The Register is full of nonsense. I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html
On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission:
Not worth it. I'm not sure they quite crossed the line into something I could get the PCC to do anything about. The facts of what I said were pretty much correctly reported, it was the tone that they completely changed. I took care to make sure I was very polite and professional and suggested that they might like to consider correcting the mistakes in their story. They turned it into a very unprofessional demand that they correct the mistakes, which they then proceeded to claim was hypocritical because of all the mistakes in Wikipedia.
Quoting Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission:
Not worth it. I'm not sure they quite crossed the line into something I could get the PCC to do anything about. The facts of what I said were pretty much correctly reported, it was the tone that they completely changed. I took care to make sure I was very polite and professional and suggested that they might like to consider correcting the mistakes in their story. They turned it into a very unprofessional demand that they correct the mistakes, which they then proceeded to claim was hypocritical because of all the mistakes in Wikipedia.
Sufficient change of tone may be enough for the PCC. I'd recommend doing it. It's their job to decide whether or not it was enough of a problem to merit attention.
On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission:
Not worth it. I'm not sure they quite crossed the line into something I could get the PCC to do anything about. The facts of what I said were pretty much correctly reported, it was the tone that they completely changed. I took care to make sure I was very polite and professional and suggested that they might like to consider correcting the mistakes in their story. They turned it into a very unprofessional demand that they correct the mistakes, which they then proceeded to claim was hypocritical because of all the mistakes in Wikipedia.
Sufficient change of tone may be enough for the PCC. I'd recommend doing it. It's their job to decide whether or not it was enough of a problem to merit attention.
I'm not sure I still have a copy of the original, so it's probably too late. I think I just filled out their comments form, so there's no archived copy at my end.
On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The second bit of that may be true (there are a lot of idiots in the world), but the first part simply isn't. The Register is full of nonsense. I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
I think they may very well be a decent journalistic source in certain areas - some of their tech reporting is quite good - but when it comes to Wikipedia, they haven't got a good track record (to say the least). People who only know of the Register from its reporting in general technology may not be aware of its shadier handling of Wikipedia.
Johnleemk
On Dec 9, 2007 10:24 PM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are
not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The second bit of that may be true (there are a lot of idiots in the world), but the first part simply isn't. The Register is full of nonsense. I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
I think they may very well be a decent journalistic source in certain areas - some of their tech reporting is quite good - but when it comes to Wikipedia, they haven't got a good track record (to say the least). People who only know of the Register from its reporting in general technology may not be aware of its shadier handling of Wikipedia.
I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been some sort of official
response to these articles yet; the first one was five days ago and the second was three days ago, with Seth Finkelstein's story in between. Most media will send advance copies to the subjects of their articles in order to permit prompt response; given that Jimmy was already in the UK at the time, I would have expected some sort of response while he was there.
Risker
At the risk of sounding cynical, the Register can be ignored indefinitely. Wikipedia's continuing commitment to open content and open processes are the best rebuttal to claims that it's all being run by some shadowy elite.
When Wikimedia Foundation representatives are asked questions about the fuss, they should be well informed and well briefed on the truth behind the stories. Wikimedia has the high moral ground, and an excellent relationship with the mainstream press. With those assets, the fuss generated here can be set into perspective with ease.
On 10/12/2007, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia has the high moral ground, and an excellent relationship with the mainstream press. With those assets, the fuss generated here can be set into perspective with ease.
It is precisely because Wikipedia/Wikimedia claims high moral ground and has (or had) adoring fans in the press that the likes of the Register are quite so vociferous in their criticism of Wikipedia.
However much issues and problems are hyped up and reported with a slant, they do exist and it is foolish to just shrug off criticism just because it is not neutral or because one has a derisive view of the source of the criticism.
Zoney
However much issues and problems are hyped up and reported with a slant, they do exist and it is foolish to just shrug off criticism just because it is not neutral or because one has a derisive view of the source of the criticism.
Of course, however we have far better ways of realising what problems Wikipedia has than reading The Register. The Register just reports on (and exaggerates) disputes that are taking place elsewhere - we can get much better information by just paying attention to those disputes.
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However much issues and problems are hyped up and reported with a slant, they do exist and it is foolish to just shrug off criticism just because it is not neutral or because one has a derisive view of the source of the criticism.
Of course, however we have far better ways of realising what problems Wikipedia has than reading The Register. The Register just reports on (and exaggerates) disputes that are taking place elsewhere - we can get much better information by just paying attention to those disputes.
And in the present case, I submit there's not a lot to learn from an article rewriting a spammer's press pack (Judd Bagley's been shopping that lot around for a while now) apparently in order to garner ad banner hits.
- d.