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>
On 07/06/2014 09:10, Kevin Rutherford wrote:
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
You give some examples of things she distorted. Which things were true? She wrote:
Some hardcore Wikipedians, you never see,” says Kevin Rutherford, a braces-wearing 23-year-old whose badge identifies him as a volunteer with the New England Wikimedians. “Some are very antisocial,” he says, nodding at a group of people spilling out of a panel titled The State of Wikidata. “Even some of the ones who are here. You’ll recognize them. They have like the pizza-stained shirts. We’re the well-dressed, chill ones,”
1. Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and uncontrived.
2. You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any idea why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you said? In my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or varnish the truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.
3. Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know what 'chill' means.
4. Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?
These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.
Ed
Ktr: Unfortunately, just because you talk to a journalist for half an hour doesn't mean it's not still a trap. Luckily, this is a relatively easy way to learn that lesson.
Isarra: whoa, I can't believe I guessed who the other contributor present was. Kudos on your response.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:33 AM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 07/06/2014 09:10, Kevin Rutherford wrote:
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
You give some examples of things she distorted. Which things were true? She wrote:
Some hardcore Wikipedians, you never see,” says Kevin Rutherford, a braces-wearing 23-year-old whose badge identifies him as a volunteer with the New England Wikimedians. “Some are very antisocial,” he says, nodding at a group of people spilling out of a panel titled The State of Wikidata. “Even some of the ones who are here. You’ll recognize them. They have like the pizza-stained shirts. We’re the well-dressed, chill ones,”
- Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of
people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and uncontrived.
- You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any idea
why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you said? In my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or varnish the truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.
- Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know
what 'chill' means.
- Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And
then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?
These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.
Ed
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi edward.
I'm not Kevin Rutherford, but if you want to debate the accuracy of some of the statements made (the content, not the author's presentation of the content), I'm game. As discussed in this mailing list thread, the piece contains facts, but also contains inaccurate statements and distortions.
edward wrote:
- Did you say 'some are very antisocial'? The reference to the group of
people 'spilling out' and your nodding at them seems very specific and uncontrived.
Sure, some Wikimedians are very anti-social. And these anti-social Wikimedians are typically the people to eschew attending wiki conferences. This is hardly surprising, as wiki conferences are full of people! This does not mean that the more sociable Wikimedians are any better or worse than the less sociable Wikimedians, this is just how people are. I think it's a feature that Wikimedia is very open to both groups of people.
Speaking about my experiences specifically, conferences tend to attract the extremes: people who edit a whole lot (and who are heavily involved with Wikimedia) and people who have edited very little or not at all (people who are curious and simply want to know more). Both extremes are welcome, of course, as are the millions of people in the middle of the extremes. It's not uncommon for a person who's just registered a Wikimedia account that day to be sitting between a two-term English Wikipedia Arbitrator and a Wikimedia Foundation Board member.
- You said that the 'pizza stained shirts' remark was invented. Any
idea why she wrote that? Was there anything slightly similar that you said? In my experience journalists often embellish and embroider or varnish the truth, they rarely tell a bald-faced lie.
Pizza was served for lunch on at least the third day. I have no doubt that out of the dozens of people eating pizza, at least one or two stained themselves with pizza grease. Spilling things on yourself is part of human nature. I'm not totally sure what's groundbreaking or noteworthy here. Pizza is greasy and humans wear clothes; film at 11. ;-)
- Did you say "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones"? I don't even know
what 'chill' means.
Try https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chill#Adjective? :-)
- Did you talk about "“White, male techies with college degrees,” ? And
then "“I mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” ?
Wikimedia is heavily edited and influenced by white, male techies (myself included). I think this has become common knowledge. There are various efforts to mitigate and address this, but it's neither quick nor easy work.
Given the premise that Wikimedians are typically white, male techies with college degrees, I believe the "you are like us, but you're not" meant that the person in question was typical in being a white techie with a college degree, but atypical in being a female contributor.
These are not rhetorical questions, I just want to understand what happened and what didn't. Forgive my impertinence.
I'm not sure what your specific focus is here with these questions. Perhaps you could clarify?
MZMcBride
On 07/06/2014 15:08, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not sure what your specific _focus_ [my emphasis] is here with
these questions. Perhaps you could clarify?
I think you mean 'intention' rather than 'focus'. I already spelled out the _focus_, which was on whether Kevin _said_ those things attributed to him or not, or whether it was complete journalistic invention. As I said, journalists tend to embellish and varnish, rarely is there complete invention.
Regarding _intention_ I would rather like to get to the truth about whether he said that or not (rather than whether what he was supposed to have said was true). For example, he is supposed to have said "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones". I suppose at the back of my mind was, if he really said that, what on earth was he thinking of, if he knew he was speaking to a journalist? I mean, if you talk to these people you want to be as open as you can, without being deceptive, but always mindful that anything you say may be taken as it is and published in the Daily Mail. So think carefully about what you say. If Kevin did say that, then two things are publishable, (i) that he is mentally dividing, perhaps not very nicely, the Wikipedians who aren't cool or hip, and himself and his 'chill' mates, and (ii) he is rather risibly signifying that he is cool and hip, which is something you should be generally careful of doing, even with mates, and especially with journalists, who are sort of programmed to pick up on these things.
Note I said 'taken as it is' and not 'taken out of context'. People talk about 'remarks taken out of context' but when you look at what they said, it is nearly always that they weren't thinking carefully about what they were saying, and inadvertently gave away thoughts that they would rather have kept inside their heads.
But we don't know whether he actually did say that or not.
Thanks for explaining 'chill'.
, Ed
And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character? Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious ones the journalist asked him (but please off-list). Or do you want to hit on him (or claim your disgust) if it comes out that he said roughly what was printed although the situation was differently than told by the journalist and he meant it differently what he has already confirmed? This cannot be useful on this list either. This is not a trial. Who are we to demand the truth here? … I met him for five minutes in Berlin and don't know him onwiki, so will this story (whose common theme I still cannot find—is it really just giving some quotes here and then said?) create or change my impression on him? No, not at all. I haven't been there, I cannot judge the situation, even if this or that party tells me their impressions. I should not even do this, this is not my task and if I have an impression why is it important that others know about it? The journalist had her “story” (and as far as I know journalists, they emphasize the most stupid things one can imagine [if that counts, my lumberjack shirt should be notable for Wikipedia as often as journalists made fun of it 9.9]), Kevin already said that words were taken out of (a non-serious) context, misinterpreted, etc. What do I have to know more about this story? Nothing. Next story please.
Cheers, Martin
2014-06-07 16:30 GMT+02:00 edward edward@logicmuseum.com:
On 07/06/2014 15:08, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not sure what your specific _focus_ [my emphasis] is here with these
questions. Perhaps you could clarify?
I think you mean 'intention' rather than 'focus'. I already spelled out the _focus_, which was on whether Kevin _said_ those things attributed to him or not, or whether it was complete journalistic invention. As I said, journalists tend to embellish and varnish, rarely is there complete invention.
Regarding _intention_ I would rather like to get to the truth about whether he said that or not (rather than whether what he was supposed to have said was true). For example, he is supposed to have said "We’re the well-dressed, chill ones". I suppose at the back of my mind was, if he really said that, what on earth was he thinking of, if he knew he was speaking to a journalist? I mean, if you talk to these people you want to be as open as you can, without being deceptive, but always mindful that anything you say may be taken as it is and published in the Daily Mail. So think carefully about what you say. If Kevin did say that, then two things are publishable, (i) that he is mentally dividing, perhaps not very nicely, the Wikipedians who aren't cool or hip, and himself and his 'chill' mates, and (ii) he is rather risibly signifying that he is cool and hip, which is something you should be generally careful of doing, even with mates, and especially with journalists, who are sort of programmed to pick up on these things.
Note I said 'taken as it is' and not 'taken out of context'. People talk about 'remarks taken out of context' but when you look at what they said, it is nearly always that they weren't thinking carefully about what they were saying, and inadvertently gave away thoughts that they would rather have kept inside their heads.
But we don't know whether he actually did say that or not.
Thanks for explaining 'chill'.
, Ed
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Martin Rulsch martin.rulsch@wikimedia.de wrote:
And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character? Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious ones the journalist asked him (but please off-list). Or do you want to hit on him (or claim your disgust) if it comes out that he said roughly what was printed although the situation was differently than told by the journalist and he meant it differently what he has already confirmed? This cannot be useful on this list either. This is not a trial. Who are we to demand the truth here? … I met him for five minutes in Berlin and don't know him onwiki, so will this story (whose common theme I still cannot find—is it really just giving some quotes here and then said?) create or change my impression on him? No, not at all. I haven't been there, I cannot judge the situation, even if this or that party tells me their impressions. I should not even do this, this is not my task and if I have an impression why is it important that others know about it? The journalist had her “story” (and as far as I know journalists, they emphasize the most stupid things one can imagine [if that counts, my lumberjack shirt should be notable for Wikipedia as often as journalists made fun of it 9.9]), Kevin already said that words were taken out of (a non-serious) context, misinterpreted, etc. What do I have to know more about this story? Nothing. Next story please.
Cheers, Martin
With Martin on this one. Having answers to "did he really say that??" isn't relevant for this list. Edward is obviously free to contact Kevin directly to keep asking, and no one else is likely to answer either way.
On 07/06/2014 16:39, Nathan wrote:
Having answers to "did he really say that??"
The reason I asked was that Kevin (Rutherford, not Gorman) gave a lengthy reply here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072549.html , saying, for example, "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". Given he said that, I think it is only fair to ask which things were outright lies, and which weren't. No? Perhaps the journalist herself should have a right to comment.
, Ed
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org