Sj wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:41:43 +0200, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Two words: PRESS RELEASE!
Seriously, once the fund drive is over we should have a press release about this and also mention the fact and result of our 'recent successful fund drive.' We should also quote Jimbo when he said that commercial encyclopedias will be out of business in 5 years if they keep doing as they have been.
I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to send a separate press release. We discussed this yesterday among the german wikipedians, feelings were mixed.
Well, it would be combined with other notices for the coming week. But this professional content test (and it would not be a bad idea to commission more of the same) is more newsworthy than the successful completion of our fundraiser.
On this one, I agree with Elian. I doubt that a press release of this nature would have much impact because we haven't done anything worth mentioning (completing the fundraiser precipitated by our last press release doesn't qualify), this is something somebody else did. The best time to send a press release is when *we ourselves* have done something newsworthy. And if the wikipedians on de: are skeptical about the value of a press release here, when the test relates specifically to them, I think that's a pretty good indication for the rest of us. An alternative idea might be to play this up as part of a rollout for whatever new quality control system we develop - as in "Look how good we already are, now we're getting better".
By the way, as we wrap up the fundraiser portion, let me take this opportunity to again thank everyone who worked on the last press release. There are too many names to list, and some weren't logged in anyway, but to anyone who helped write, translate, or distribute the press release - Great work! I think the resulting press coverage has been about as good as we could have hoped for, as the 1,000,000-article milestone got mentioned on numerous websites and in quite a few print newspapers and magazines, including a widely reprinted AP story. While I don't understand every language, I was able to decipher that the coverage spread across quite a few different languages, which is even better.
And now, time to get back to work on improving the encyclopedia, so that this amounts to more than just our 15 minutes of fame.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
On this one, I agree with Elian. I doubt that a press release of this nature would have much impact because we haven't done anything worth mentioning
I agree with Elian too. I've been using these results in a low-key way when I talk to the press, but usually I down play it. When the question of quality comes up, I prefer to stress that we know we aren't perfect, and that we have a long way to go, but that we are proud of what we have already accomplished.
The idea is that we should continue to portray ourselves as "a project to create..." rather than as a finished product. Because, frankly, we do have a long way to go in many ways.
Putting out a press release crowing about this test just invites more hostile reviews to conduct the same type of test, but with an eye toward showing how broken we are in many ways.
--Jimbo
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Michael Snow wrote:
On this one, I agree with Elian. I doubt that a press release of this nature would have much impact because we haven't done anything worth mentioning
I believe Elian was saying that it *is* going to be announced this week, but as part of another major german press release, rather than on its own.
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 21:03:53 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I agree with Elian too. I've been using these results in a low-key way when I talk to the press, but usually I down play it. When the question of quality comes up, I prefer to stress that we know we aren't perfect, and that we have a long way to go, but that we are proud of what we have already accomplished.
The idea is that we should continue to portray ourselves as "a project to create..." rather than as a finished product. Because, frankly, we do have a long way to go in many ways.
I agree with all of this, and hope that Wikipedia a hundred years from now will still see itself not as anything like a finished product, but instead as the imperfect start of something even greater.
Putting out a press release crowing about this test just invites more hostile reviews to conduct the same type of test, but with an eye toward showing how broken we are in many ways.
Would this not be an improvement on the kinds of hostile tests critics carry out now? Some organizations pay good money for testers whose sole job is to constructively show how broken their products are.
That said, it should be possible to mention these results without crowing, yet without waiting for a yet-unfinalized review system to review a thousand articles. Perhaps in a press release announcing a new project like the Commons, or a recent invitation to participate in / speak at an important conference.
Michael-
An alternative idea might be to play this up as part of a rollout for whatever new quality control system we develop - as in "Look how good we already are, now we're getting better".
I think we should announce the first N reviewed articles, rather than the rollout of the system itself. Other than that, I like the idea.
Regards,
Erik
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:49:37 -0700, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
elian writes:
I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to send a separate press release. We discussed this yesterday among the german wikipedians, feelings were mixed.
Well, it would be combined with other notices for the coming week. But this professional content test (and it would not be a bad idea to commission more of the same) is more newsworthy than the successful completion of our fundraiser.
On this one, I agree with Elian. I doubt that a press release of this nature would have much impact because we haven't done anything worth mentioning (completing the fundraiser precipitated by our last press release doesn't qualify), this is something somebody else did.
A fine point. Do you think a press release would be appropriate for promoting a similar study, if it were commissioned by Wikipedia?
And if the wikipedians on de: are skeptical about the value of a press release here, when the test relates specifically to them, I think that's a pretty good indication for the rest of us.
My initial interest in such a press release was sparked by interest from wikipedians on de: . Elian's post above was my first indication that this enthusiasm was not universal.
An alternative idea might be to play this up as part of a rollout for whatever new quality control system we develop - as in "Look how good we already are, now we're getting better".
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a sizeable number of articles (1000?) have passed through this system in at least one language. At the same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
Sj wrote:
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a sizeable number of articles (1000?) have passed through this system in at least one language. At the same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
What I'd *really* like is details on the quality review de: apparently went through to get de: to such a state, and whether we can just do that for en: as well. On the principle that we undeniably have lots of good stuff, but hitting 'Random page' twenty times shows up our defects glaringly.
- d.
I agree. I would like to know exactly how the qualitat offensive works.
Ant
David Gerard a écrit:
Sj wrote:
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a sizeable number of articles (1000?) have passed through this system in at least one language. At the same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
What I'd *really* like is details on the quality review de: apparently went through to get de: to such a state, and whether we can just do that for en: as well. On the principle that we undeniably have lots of good stuff, but hitting 'Random page' twenty times shows up our defects glaringly.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Sj wrote:
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a sizeable number of articles (1000?) have passed through this system in at least one language. At the same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
What I'd *really* like is details on the quality review de: apparently went through to get de: to such a state, and whether we can just do that for en: as well. On the principle that we undeniably have lots of good stuff, but hitting 'Random page' twenty times shows up our defects glaringly.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the English articles that correspond to the ones, substituting only for the ones where the subject would be culturally meaningless for an English speaking audience. Encyclopedia Britannica could also replace Brockhaus. This would ensure that our own comparisons were based on a somewhat objective article selection..
"Commissioning" such a study would make it difficult to defend that the study was impartial. A truly independent study must come from an impartial outside source that has full control over its article selection. It would be interesting to see what a group like "Consumer Reports" would do with this.
There is one futher observation from Lothar's list. He noted that the study pointed out that we did not have an article for the medical term "Fontanelle". This deficiency was quickly remedied, and I am sure that the other deficiencies will also be reviewed. It would be interesting to review the same articles after 60 days. That would measure the capacity of each encyclopedia to quickly repair its shortcomings when thay have been pointed out.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Sj wrote:
Yes; I like Erik's idea of doing this once a sizeable number of articles (1000?) have passed through this system in at least one language. At the same time, we should commission a similar content comparison for en:...
What I'd *really* like is details on the quality review de: apparently went through to get de: to such a state, and whether we can just do that for en: as well. On the principle that we undeniably have lots of good stuff, but hitting 'Random page' twenty times shows up our defects glaringly.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the English articles that correspond to the ones, substituting only for the ones where the subject would be culturally meaningless for an English speaking audience. Encyclopedia Britannica could also replace Brockhaus. This would ensure that our own comparisons were based on a somewhat objective article selection..
"Commissioning" such a study would make it difficult to defend that the study was impartial. A truly independent study must come from an impartial outside source that has full control over its article selection. It would be interesting to see what a group like "Consumer Reports" would do with this.
There is one futher observation from Lothar's list. He noted that the study pointed out that we did not have an article for the medical term "Fontanelle". This deficiency was quickly remedied, and I am sure that the other deficiencies will also be reviewed. It would be interesting to review the same articles after 60 days. That would measure the capacity of each encyclopedia to quickly repair its shortcomings when thay have been pointed out.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Oct 3, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Sj wrote:
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:49:37 -0700, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
elian writes:
I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to send a separate press release. We discussed this yesterday among the german wikipedians, feelings were mixed.
Well, it would be combined with other notices for the coming week. But this professional content test (and it would not be a bad idea to commission more of the same) is more newsworthy than the successful completion of our fundraiser.
On this one, I agree with Elian. I doubt that a press release of this nature would have much impact because we haven't done anything worth mentioning (completing the fundraiser precipitated by our last press release doesn't qualify), this is something somebody else did.
A fine point. Do you think a press release would be appropriate for promoting a similar study, if it were commissioned by Wikipedia? Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Advice: summarize their data in a table, and tout it as part of your fundraiser. Include references to the article in future press releases using phrases such as:
"Wikipedia, which has been rated higher by an independent group of experts as broader and more in depth than many commercial offerings,"
and footnote the survey. That it was not commissioned by Wikimedia foundation makes it more, not less, credible.
By itself, this is something that will disseminate, and it has already been kick started into the English speaking world, however it is very valuable over the long term as part of establishing the Wikipedia brand name in people's minds as being equivalent to other inexpensive encyclopedias. To put it in marketing terms, the positioning of the brand is that Wiki is equal in quality, while being being "free" in both the sense of cost and in the sense of being more democratic in its content.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org