-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 07:20 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC
On 25/07/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Journals are professionals, with specialized training and supervised experience. They are taught how to work with things they do not necessarily understand--in a sense, the very profession is the the ability to go in and make sense out of something that is not understood. Some but not many WP editors have that skill also. A very few as actual journalists, a few from related training (such as we librarians), some from innate ability, but generally from experience and attention.
That's the theory. Go and read a few science articles in mainstream media and you'll soon realise that in practice things are very different. Journalists think they can write about things they don't understand and are generally wrong. Sound familiar?
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button... The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish. However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your encyclopedia".
Fred
I don't believe David had to show him the edit button. What in fact that piece of the audio is about is, as shown by the history of the given article, Clive used section editing and was checking the edit link of that section was the right one.
On 25/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton [mailto:thomas.dalton@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 07:20 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BBC
On 25/07/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Journals are professionals, with specialized training and supervised experience. They are taught how to work with things they do not necessarily understand--in a sense, the very profession is the the ability to go in and make sense out of something that is not understood. Some but not many WP editors have that skill also. A very few as actual journalists, a few from related training (such as we librarians), some from innate ability, but generally from experience and attention.
That's the theory. Go and read a few science articles in mainstream media and you'll soon realise that in practice things are very different. Journalists think they can write about things they don't understand and are generally wrong. Sound familiar?
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button... The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish. However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your encyclopedia".
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button...
I must say he got it very quickly though. And by "it" I mean what's addictive about Wikipedia. I could see it in his eyes!
Although only a few minutes of talking to me made it in out of an hour or two's recording, I did point out that you'll meet idiots on Wikipedia, just like anywhere on the internet. So I tried not to whitewash the joys of Wikipedia.
The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC
than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish.
It was a magazine-style article rather than investigative journalism. Though [[Clive Anderson]] is no idiot, and his fans know this. I thought it was an entirely reasonable approach for him and his producer to have taken to the show.
(Arkady was away that day and her jaw dropped when I told her. "Clive Anderson was in our house?!" "And sitting in your chair!")
(Free pic of him up on his article next week. It's currently on the Linux share of my work laptop, which is living in Windows for the week while I'm on a training course.)
However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your encyclopedia".
I was enormously pleased with how positive the resulting piece was. I'm only worried it was too positive.
I was somewhat annoyed my usual description of "neutral point of view" didn't make it in - "it's the overview from 20,000 feet. And none of us are 20,000 feet above, we're all down here, but we try to work out what the view would look like from there with others." This answers Britannica's frequent furphy about the truth not being up for a vote.
- d.
More generally, journalists are rarely capable of handling scientific topics because very few have any kind of scientific background. In all likelihood during their school days they were the ones who did very well in classes where they could showcase their "creative" writing skills, and who did very poorly in science if they couldn't get out of such classes altogether.
This may be the most asinine, sweeping generalization I've ever heard on this list. You're making a general assertion about the school habits of all journalists that is completely verifiable, besides being utterly untrue. When you comment on the personal histories of journalists, don't you think it's a little funny that you criticize them as having no knowledge or frame of reference on a subject, and yet you have no intimate knowledge or frame of reference on journalists and their histories? What nonsense.
On 7/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about
WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button...
I must say he got it very quickly though. And by "it" I mean what's addictive about Wikipedia. I could see it in his eyes!
Although only a few minutes of talking to me made it in out of an hour or two's recording, I did point out that you'll meet idiots on Wikipedia, just like anywhere on the internet. So I tried not to whitewash the joys of Wikipedia.
The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC
than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish.
It was a magazine-style article rather than investigative journalism. Though [[Clive Anderson]] is no idiot, and his fans know this. I thought it was an entirely reasonable approach for him and his producer to have taken to the show.
(Arkady was away that day and her jaw dropped when I told her. "Clive Anderson was in our house?!" "And sitting in your chair!")
(Free pic of him up on his article next week. It's currently on the Linux share of my work laptop, which is living in Windows for the week while I'm on a training course.)
However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your
encyclopedia".
I was enormously pleased with how positive the resulting piece was. I'm only worried it was too positive.
I was somewhat annoyed my usual description of "neutral point of view" didn't make it in - "it's the overview from 20,000 feet. And none of us are 20,000 feet above, we're all down here, but we try to work out what the view would look like from there with others." This answers Britannica's frequent furphy about the truth not being up for a vote.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David, it's interesting that you mention a "magazine-style" piece. Did you read the NYTimes Magazine article on Wikipedia a couple weeks ago? That was a much more valid and considered piece of journalism than this. You're absolutely right about the style of both pieces, they aren't digging for a scoop, they're reporting on the progress of the subject. But just because it isn't investigative doesn't mean it has nothing of value to say.
On 7/25/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
More generally, journalists are rarely capable of handling scientific topics because very few have any kind of scientific background. In all likelihood during their school days they were the ones who did very well in classes where they could showcase their "creative" writing skills, and who did very poorly in science if they couldn't get out of such classes altogether.
This may be the most asinine, sweeping generalization I've ever heard on this list. You're making a general assertion about the school habits of all journalists that is completely verifiable, besides being utterly untrue. When you comment on the personal histories of journalists, don't you think it's a little funny that you criticize them as having no knowledge or frame of reference on a subject, and yet you have no intimate knowledge or frame of reference on journalists and their histories? What nonsense.
On 7/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
It isn't so much that he's wrong, but how much can you learn about
WIKIPEDIA by interviewing Larry Sanders and the management of Britannica? David Gerard had to show him the edit button...
I must say he got it very quickly though. And by "it" I mean what's addictive about Wikipedia. I could see it in his eyes!
Although only a few minutes of talking to me made it in out of an hour or two's recording, I did point out that you'll meet idiots on Wikipedia, just like anywhere on the internet. So I tried not to whitewash the joys of Wikipedia.
The piece reflects more on the reliability and integrity of the BBC
than on that of Wikipedia. It was amateurish.
It was a magazine-style article rather than investigative journalism. Though [[Clive Anderson]] is no idiot, and his fans know this. I thought it was an entirely reasonable approach for him and his producer to have taken to the show.
(Arkady was away that day and her jaw dropped when I told her. "Clive Anderson was in our house?!" "And sitting in your chair!")
(Free pic of him up on his article next week. It's currently on the Linux share of my work laptop, which is living in Windows for the week while I'm on a training course.)
However a nice note at the end encouraging people to edit, "It's your
encyclopedia".
I was enormously pleased with how positive the resulting piece was. I'm only worried it was too positive.
I was somewhat annoyed my usual description of "neutral point of view" didn't make it in - "it's the overview from 20,000 feet. And none of us are 20,000 feet above, we're all down here, but we try to work out what the view would look like from there with others." This answers Britannica's frequent furphy about the truth not being up for a vote.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
David, it's interesting that you mention a "magazine-style" piece. Did you read the NYTimes Magazine article on Wikipedia a couple weeks ago? That was a much more valid and considered piece of journalism than this. You're absolutely right about the style of both pieces, they aren't digging for a scoop, they're reporting on the progress of the subject. But just because it isn't investigative doesn't mean it has nothing of value to say.
I meant that it is what it is and was ideally tuned to its audience. They certainly put in the effort and I think they got a pretty good result.
- d.
Oh, okay.
On 7/25/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
David, it's interesting that you mention a "magazine-style" piece. Did
you
read the NYTimes Magazine article on Wikipedia a couple weeks ago? That
was
a much more valid and considered piece of journalism than this. You're absolutely right about the style of both pieces, they aren't digging for
a
scoop, they're reporting on the progress of the subject. But just
because it
isn't investigative doesn't mean it has nothing of value to say.
I meant that it is what it is and was ideally tuned to its audience. They certainly put in the effort and I think they got a pretty good result.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l