[WikiEN-l] Meet the Metz

[George Herbert]

I do not disagree that offering to talk to the press is good.

I talk to press a moderate amount, on and off, in other fields (computing,
alt.space company stuff).  In some cases I know the press people, in other
cases I have just talked to them one or more times.

When the discussion is about something where there is a percieved conflict,
it's worthwhile finding out if the article is intended to be an honest
coverage of the incident, or simply taking a side and publicizing it.

What came out was simply taking a side and publicizing it.

If you know going in to an interview, or should have known going in, that
the piece is not going to try to present all sides, then it's not a "news"
story, it's an opinion/feature piece.  Some of those, it's probably not a
good idea to participate in.

If the journalist already has a firm set opinion that something's wrong,
engaging with them will often just give them more ammo.  Especially if they
think you're associated with the percieved "bad guy".

I don't suggest that we should do anything like a press blackout, even if we
could.  But I appeal to everyone's common sense.  If the journalist in
question is presenting dangerously unbalanced portrayals of the project, be
careful talking to them, and consider not talking to them.  Even if you tend
to agree with what you think their viewpoint is.

Nobody wins when purient shit-stirring happens in the press regarding the
project.


-george

On Dec 7, 2007 2:05 PM, Ben Yates <ben.louis.yates at gmail.com> wrote:

> Articles like this are getting lots of traffic from digg and other
> places, and significantly damaging wikipedia's reputation.  The way to
> combat that is not to refuse to be interviewed; it's to get the other
> side of the story out more effectively.  I'm not sure of the best way
> to do that, but I don't think the occasional bunker mentality here
> helps.
>
> On Dec 7, 2007 2:18 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 2007 5:19 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> > > Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the
> > > last one:
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
> > >
> > > <http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
> >
> >
> > Daniel;
> >
> > While I feel it's fine for everyone to have their say, including Bagley,
> I'm
> > somewhat dissapointed that you participated in helping a writer create a
> > puff piece that completely dismissed Bagley's long and well documented
> > history of dangerous stalking and harrassment activities.
> >
> > What he's done online makes it completely unsuitable for him to ever
> edit
> > Wikipedia again.
> >
> > Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy.  The Register
> thrives
> > on that.  The reality is rather different.  Rendering aid and comfort to
> > people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of
> the
> > project.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Yates
> Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com