Hey all,
I wasn't going to comment on this on this thread, but I figured I should since no one who has commented was there and it is turning into pure speculation. This is what happened, in short: During a break in the sessions, I was talking to one of the users and we sat down near Frank, who just happened to be talking to the reporter. He ended up leaving once we sat down with her (at no time was he even present for this discussion, contrary to what she wrote), but Alex and I were there and got into a rather candid discussion with her, as she seemed to show genuine interest in what we were saying (a rarity, as most of you know). Since we were the only ones in the room, others came and sat down next to us and joined in the discussion. The woman editor, who many of you know but I won't place her name here just in case she wants to remain anonymous, is a friend of mine and we get along quite well. The reporter just happened to catch me completely making a fool of myself, and published it in the magazine as proof that we cannot talk to the opposite sex. At most, there were five people that she could have interviewed alongside Alex and I, but she chose us.
In terms of how she quoted us, she liberally edited a lot of what we said, as there are many things that both Alex and I said that were manipulated, reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to prove her point (for example, I never attempted to write an article about wiki babies, as there is no way that that is notable). I'm probably not alone in that each time I read the article, I realized that there was another outright lie or misrepresentation in there that I would have never said about Wikipedians either amongst ourselves or to anyone outside of the site.
This was also not a trap or setup, as we talked to her for around half an hour before she had to go somewhere else. Maybe we erred in ignoring her phone which was placed on the table, but I didn't think anything of it at the time. I also have no problem chatting with the opposite sex, but it just so happened that there was a reporter there the moment I dug a hole for myself, and once the exchange ended, I quickly apologized and we laughed it off. I did not go bumbling about for a few more minutes, as she reported. There is no way that that quote is even close to how I feel about the gender gap (I'm a feminist), and it doesn't help that the article portrays as us rather elitist, which is also the opposite of who we are as people.
There are currently discussions going on about what we should do about this in terms of an official response, and I have seen multiple Wikimedians take down the mentions of this article on Facebook and Twitter once we realized just how misrepresentative of the movement it is. I think it should be noted that she had a wonderful opportunity to talk to some dedicated Wikipedians, and completely destroyed what trust we had in her. Heck, she could have even just reported on the fact that we had a conference which had an incredible amount of women editors, and how great of an experience it was. Instead, she mentioned wiki babies (the love aspect) and tied it into some drama that had nothing to do with that.
I guess it is my word against hers here, but I just wanted to chime in so that you all could be made aware of what happened that morning, since no one has commented who was there and this is taking on a life of its own. Others are welcome to refute or corroborate what I just said, since there if Alex and I wanted to, we could easily go through the article and fact-check most of what is there. There are also others on this list who were there to witness this whole exchange, but I'll let them chime in if they feel the need to.
Kevin Rutherford
P.S. Sorry for the block of text, as I didn't realize until I finished how long this all was.
On 7 June 2014 02:36, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote. But you know what? It was a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they want to tell, and this is what happened here. She came in looking for the geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that? One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women. And yet the reporter herself refuses to allow them their voice.
I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people who did, and I also looked at the photos. What struck me was how many women were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the women were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
Russavia, give everyone a break here. I feel badly for the young woman, because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation. I feel badly for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet. We all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable sources in our articles.
Risker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>