Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [WikiEN-l] WR's secret forum...

Coordination on Secret/private...

DanielMartin

9 Dec 2007 9 Dec '07

11:06 a.m.

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

Show replies by date

Casey Brown

10 Dec 10 Dec

12:34 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

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(a)goowy.com> wrote:

...

-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

Thomas Dalton

1:10 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

...

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.

Ian Woollard

1:48 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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 -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.

Thomas Dalton

1:50 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission: http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html

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.

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

3:55 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

Quoting Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission: http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html

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.

Thomas Dalton

5:34 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On 10/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:

...

Quoting Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 10/12/2007, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

If that is so, you could try reporting them to the press complaints commission: http://www.pcc.org.uk/index2.html

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.

John Lee

3:24 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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?

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

Risker

3:34 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On Dec 9, 2007 10:24 PM, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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?

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

Tony Sidaway

6:37 a.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

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.

Zoney

12:35 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On 10/12/2007, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)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 -- ~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

Thomas Dalton

1:46 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

...

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.

David Gerard

1:50 p.m.

New subject: Wikipedia's response to the articles published in The Register

On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)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.

...

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.

6003

days inactive

6004

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

12 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Casey Brown
DanielMartin
David Gerard
Ian Woollard
John Lee
joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu
Risker
Thomas Dalton
Tony Sidaway
Zoney