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:
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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
3. 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>? :-)
4. 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