On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:

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."

WTF? Is that an accurate quote? I didn't think Jimmy had such a negative outlook on humanity, nor on the project.

I'd juxtapose this with the view of Larry Sanger, who has spent a lot of effort trying to create an organization that humans can't screw up.

I'll assume good faith, and that Jimmy was misquoted or at least quoted out of context. I'd like to hear a clarification, though.

on 5/14/08 8:45 PM, Mark Nilrad at marknilrad@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@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&... -1_3-0-20

Marc

on 5/16/08 9:05 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

I really don't think that Wikipedia can get so much bad press and continue as usual.

All large organizations have PR problems. Stuff happens. Sometimes we need to do things better; sometimes we need to clarify the situation.

Fred

Fred,

Which situation do you feel needs clarified?

Marc Riddell

On 15/05/2008, Mark Nilrad marknilrad@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.

We have a lot of bad PR, certainly, but do with have PR problems?

Not if you don't have a conscience.

Despite all the scandals in the press, Wikipedia holds a unique place in the public psyche as *the* place to go for pretty much anything you want to know,

Except how to treat people well.

and that shows no signs of changing.

Pity.

Everyone may hate Wikipedia, but they still use it, and that's what matters.

Once again, the product is more important than the people.

Marc Riddell

That's true, but in general I think we get a lot of bad press that we simply don't deserve. Obviously, we do many things wrong at Wikipedia, some of which we are justly censured for. But so often I read some hit job in the press and think "Oh, that's just a misunderstanding. These people don't get quite how wiki works. If only I'd been able to explain at the time..."

Quite often, of course, there's no response from WMF (not asked?), or no coordinated one, so this doesn't help.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:59:34 +0100 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has PR Problems

On 15/05/2008, Mark Nilrad marknilrad@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.

We have a lot of bad PR, certainly, but do with have PR problems? Despite all the scandals in the press, Wikipedia holds a unique place in the public psyche as *the* place to go for pretty much anything you want to know, and that shows no signs of changing. Everyone may hate Wikipedia, but they still use it, and that's what matters.

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000007ukm/direct/01/

On 16/05/2008, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

That's true, but in general I think we get a lot of bad press that we simply don't deserve.

So does anything in the public eye. There might be something we can do to reduce it, but we certainly can't eliminate it. My point was that it isn't actually harming us in any significant way, so why bother doing anything about it at all?

Obviously, we do many things wrong at Wikipedia, some of which we are justly censured for.

Yes, such cases do arise and then we do need to do something about it, absolutely.

But so often I read some hit job in the press and think "Oh, that's just a misunderstanding. These people don't get quite how wiki works. If only I'd been able to explain at the time..."

Often the reason no-one was able to explain it at the time was because the journalist in question didn't want to understand, they just wanted a sensational story, so they didn't ask anyone about it (at least, not anyone that could actually help).

Quite often, of course, there's no response from WMF (not asked?), or no coordinated one, so this doesn't help.

There often is a response, though. Take a look at Sue's latest monthly report on foundation-l, under the communication section it lists who they've spoken to in the press, and it's a decent length list. I imagine when they don't respond it's a concious decision and not a lack of co-ordination.

Christiano Moreschi wrote:

Quite often, of course, there's no response from WMF (not asked?), or no coordinated one, so this doesn't help.

I think it is quite rare for there to be no response from the WMF. Sometimes, yes, we are not even asked, and all of a sudden there is a weird story based on a misunderstanding. But we have a pretty good track record of responding to legitimate press inquiries in a timely fashion.

I think we need to look at the bad press that we sometimes get and evaluate it seriously: sometimes it is unfair or silly. But when bad press comes because of something we actually did not do well, that we could think seriously about how to do better, then the right response is not to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what, we are popular?" but to respond thoughtfully.

This is particularly true when issues of ethics and human dignity are at stake, as they often are in cases of BLP-related bad press.

--Jimbo

That's what I'm talking about when I say that keeping Virgin Killer.jpg will give Wikipedia a bad reputation. The issue about the images of Muhammed would, I think, be viewed as a very conservative view from a certain religion. However, we're talking about child porn here. Even though the case has of 99.9% chance of never making the courts, it'll still be a mark on Wikipedia's record.

Noble Story

2008/5/17 Mark Nilrad marknilrad@yahoo.com:

That's what I'm talking about when I say that keeping Virgin Killer.jpg will give Wikipedia a >bad reputation.

Among those who wish to censor yes.

The issue about the images of Muhammed would, I think, be viewed as a very conservative >view from a certain religion.

A very large religion and the view on images goes beyond conservative elements.

However, we're talking about child porn here.

Evidences? I don't believe they have banned the child bride film yet.

Even though the case has of 99.9% chance of never making the courts, it'll still be a mark >on Wikipedia's record.

Can live with that.

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Mark Nilrad marknilrad@yahoo.com wrote:

I think we need to look at the bad press that we sometimes get and evaluate it seriously: sometimes it is unfair or silly. But when bad press comes because of something we actually did not do well, that we could think seriously about how to do better, then the right response is not to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what, we are popular?" but to respond thoughtfully.

This is particularly true when issues of ethics and human dignity are at stake, as they often are in cases of BLP-related bad press.

--Jimbo

That's what I'm talking about when I say that keeping Virgin Killer.jpg will give Wikipedia a bad reputation. The issue about the images of Muhammed would, I think, be viewed as a very conservative view from a certain religion. However, we're talking about child porn here. Even though the case has of 99.9% chance of never making the courts, it'll still be a mark on Wikipedia's record.

Noble Story

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The one time an image is actually -necessary and discussed- in an album article rather than a nonfree pretty for the infobox, and we want to take it out? Not on your life. And I do imagine Amazon's legal department had a good close look at that one before deciding it was legal under American law. I'm also quite sure it would get OFFICE'd before you could blink if Mike Godwin were to say "Folks, there's a chance this could legally be considered child porn."

The image caused significant controversy (just as it has here). It certainly serves an educational purpose in showing the image that caused the shock and controversy. Someone reading the article doesn't have to wonder "Why is there a section about why the album cover is controversial?", as it is readily apparent.

How about we get rid of most of the REST of the album covers, which are generally nonfree and unimportant to the article, and leave that one alone?

Jimmy Wales wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

We have a lot of bad PR, certainly, but do with have PR problems? Despite all the scandals in the press, Wikipedia holds a unique place in the public psyche as *the* place to go for pretty much anything you want to know, and that shows no signs of changing. Everyone may hate Wikipedia, but they still use it, and that's what matters.

This pretty much conflicts with the way I view how we should behave and how we should respond to criticism.

Being a popular website, being the place that "everyone" uses, is and always has been only a tangential part of our mission.

What we are is a humanitarian, charitable, and serious effort to create and maintain and distribute a high quality encyclopedia to every single person on the planet, in their own language. The fact that some set of things is popular is, in large part, irrelevant to that mission.

It's not completely tangential when it's the measure of success. It's all a part of the feedback loop.

I think we need to look at the bad press that we sometimes get and evaluate it seriously: sometimes it is unfair or silly. But when bad press comes because of something we actually did not do well, that we could think seriously about how to do better, then the right response is not to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what, we are popular?" but to respond thoughtfully.

This is particularly true when issues of ethics and human dignity are at stake, as they often are in cases of BLP-related bad press.

But the fact also is that we also have people who react with such alarm that an otherwise trivial or silly issue becomes a public spectacle.

Ec

David Gerard wrote:

Although BLPs have to be written to NPOV/NOR/V just like any article, the essential difference (I think) is that we don't have the luxury of eventualism. At all. Every version that lasts more than a few minutes has to not be problematic.

That isn't remotely a requirement. It isn't something any other source does either---otherwise newspapers would never issue retractions.

Of course *striving* to avoid errors, and to correct those that arise as quickly as possible, is a good goal. But your proposal is utterly ridiculous and harmful.

-Mark