[Wikipedia-l] Re: On press releases and boasting

[Stirling Newberry]

On Oct 3, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Sj wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:49:37 -0700, Michael Snow
> <wikipedia at 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 at 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.