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."

on 5/14/08 8:45 PM, Mark Nilrad at marknilrad(a)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.

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.

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

On 15/05/2008, Mark Nilrad <marknilrad(a)yahoo.com> 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.

Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:59:34 +0100 From: thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia has PR Problems On 15/05/2008, Mark Nilrad <marknilrad(a)yahoo.com> 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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

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

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.

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

Thomas Dalton wrote: 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.

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.

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.