Before conspiracy theories go too far - I do think it is worth noting that the possible
missteps by the press (and not Jimmy) that folks are suggesting do indeed happen often.
News outlets need to attract readers to make ad sales. The reality is that not many
non-Wikimedians know, or care, about who Jimmy is. It is in the paper's best interest
to make that link for the reader to get more attention for the article.
There have been many times when I have submitted things to news outlets and specifically
asked them NOT to include my organization affiliations - but they do it anyway. So, yes,
the notion that the press inserted his link to Wikipedia is absolutely plausible and
happens often. The notion that folks submitting content to the press have any control
over what the press does with it at that point is absolutely false.
I think anyone that has been interviewed by the press more than a dozen times has had
experiences of the reporter doing the exact opposite of what you request, or completely
messing up your quote. It happens.
I do not know what happened here, but the idea that Jimmy never mentioned Wikipedia or
Wikimedia anywhere in his writing, and that the press inserted it for him, would
absolutely not surprise me as it has happened to me before.
Just wanted to add that as I sensed some folks were quicker to believe Jimmy was to
"blame" than the press - who in my experience are just as often the culprit in
disagreements like this.
While I do not agree with this view, a number of folks in the press have also told me they
do not see linking a person to their "claims to fame" imply they are then
speaking on behalf of those causes (they often use former elected officials, who retain
their prefix titles, as examples). Again, I disagree, but have heard that multiple times
from reporters at different news outlets - I would not be surprised to learn that the
copy-editor, or whomever, felt the same here.
-greg
On 27 Jun, 2012, at 2:57 PM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
Message-ID:
<CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=119bQ(a)mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about
that is hard to understand?
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
------------------------------
SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who
expressed an
opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.
Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy
was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on
Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to
differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was
planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens
when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community
with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA
blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and
the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different.
WSC
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l