Defending Wikipedia from Tabloid Hit Jobs

[Poetlister]

Though writing sensationalised news about Wikipedia is a profitable occupation, John Lubbock argues that we all must make a stand against disinformation. ...

It is never easy to get the press to report on the valuable work we do to improve Wikipedia, which is used by around 1.4 billion people a month (21 billion total page views last month) and currently exists in 307 different languages. For some reason, much of the media is simply not interested in knowing ‘how the sausage is made’, though I feel that sometimes this lack of interest is due to the competition that Wikipedia poses to traditional media as a source of news.

Byline Times

You'd think that John Lubbock of all people would know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

[Randy from Boise]

Though writing sensationalised news about Wikipedia is a profitable occupation, John Lubbock argues that we all must make a stand against disinformation. ...

It is never easy to get the press to report on the valuable work we do to improve Wikipedia, which is used by around 1.4 billion people a month (21 billion total page views last month) and currently exists in 307 different languages. For some reason, much of the media is simply not interested in knowing ‘how the sausage is made’, though I feel that sometimes this lack of interest is due to the competition that Wikipedia poses to traditional media as a source of news.

Byline Times

You'd think that John Lubbock of all people would know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

No — I'd think you would have the basic reading skills needed to ascertain that John Lubbock calls it no such thing anywhere in the article you link.

RfB

[Poetlister]

The point is that since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it cannot be in competition with traditional media as a source of news. Surely Mr Lubbock would not suggest that this rule is being ignored.

[Eric Corbett]

The point is that since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it cannot be in competition with traditional media as a source of news. Surely Mr Lubbock would not suggest that this rule is being ignored.

Perhaps RfB is using a WikiSpeak definition of traditional news media that excludes newspapers?

[Bezdomni]

From the title (and recent experience), I expected this thread to be about something totally different. I was not expecting it to be about Wikipedia being disparaged by the Mail. Mr. Tricky Title strikes again. (Oh wait, that was the article title not Poetlister's... )


This is, FWIW, what Smallbones has as his lead story for "In the Media" next month.

[Poetlister]

He doesn't like the Guardian either. The Guardian clearly is not a tabloid. I don't understand the point he was making. A decision was made, allegedly, by the people who decide the policies, namely the ordinary editors of Wikipedia and therefore by Wikipedia insofar as it cn be regarded as an entity.

The Daily Mail, in particular, has been on a low-level crusade to discredit Wikipedia since 2017, when editors of the site decided to put the newspaper on the list of unreliable sources which should not be used to reference factual information (but can still be used for other things like quotes). The Guardian exacerbated this situation by sensationally headlining its report with Wikipedia Bans the Daily Mail as ‘Unreliable’ Source, suggesting that this was a top-down decision made by Wikipedia’s leaders. Wikipedia has no leaders and all the content and policies are decided democratically by ordinary editors who decide to participate in the discussions.

[Eric Corbett]

Wikipedia's content and policies are decided democratically? News to me.

[Midsize Jake]

Wikipedia's content and policies are decided democratically? News to me.

My guess would be that they assumed most of their readers wouldn't have known the meaning of "ochlocratic," and even if they did they'd think it was practically the same thing.

[Eric Corbett]

Wikipedia's content and policies are decided democratically? News to me.

My guess would be that they assumed most of their readers wouldn't have known the meaning of "ochlocratic," and even if they did they'd think it was practically the same thing.

In WikiSpeak it is the same thing.

[Poetlister]

It is democratic to the extent that anyone can turn up and comment. The fact that the vast bulk of even the regular editors have no idea that the discussion is happening is just an inconvenient little detail. And of course in the case of the Daily Mail, many US editors would never have seen a copy and would have no clue what the issue is.

[Zoloft]

It is democratic to the extent that anyone can turn up and comment. The fact that the vast bulk of even the regular editors have no idea that the discussion is happening is just an inconvenient little detail. And of course in the case of the Daily Mail, many US editors would never have seen a copy and would have no clue what the issue is.

Of course, Wikipedia shares with most democracies the fact that if you show up with constructive criticism, you may be 'disappeared.'

Oh wait, that's 'fascist dictatorships.' My bad.

[Eric Corbett]

It is democratic to the extent that anyone can turn up and comment. The fact that the vast bulk of even the regular editors have no idea that the discussion is happening is just an inconvenient little detail. And of course in the case of the Daily Mail, many US editors would never have seen a copy and would have no clue what the issue is.

Of course, Wikipedia shares with most democracies the fact that if you show up with constructive criticism, you may be 'disappeared.'

Oh wait, that's 'fascist dictatorships.' My bad.

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Beeblebrox]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So true, why I've heard of people who were rude, nasty and condescending all the time. After like a decade of acting in this manner, -bam- they get disappeared in an entirely opaque process and everyone is too scared to say anything about, and it never gets talked about anywhere.

And it's just so very easy to be one of the ones in charge, so long as you know the right people and are in the right club. Most admins are 13th degree Freemasons, as everyone knows, and the entire ArbCom is made up of direct descendants of Aleister Crowley. That guy got around even more than you might think.

[Poetlister]

It is democratic to the extent that anyone can turn up and comment. The fact that the vast bulk of even the regular editors have no idea that the discussion is happening is just an inconvenient little detail. And of course in the case of the Daily Mail, many US editors would never have seen a copy and would have no clue what the issue is.

Of course, Wikipedia shares with most democracies the fact that if you show up with constructive criticism, you may be 'disappeared.'

Oh wait, that's 'fascist dictatorships.' My bad.

Yes of course, everyone on Wikipedia loves constructive criticism. Look how popular this site is over there.

[Eric Corbett]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So true, why I've heard of people who were rude, nasty and condescending all the time. After like a decade of acting in this manner, -bam- they get disappeared in an entirely opaque process and everyone is too scared to say anything about, and it never gets talked about anywhere.

And it's just so very easy to be one of the ones in charge, so long as you know the right people and are in the right club. Most admins are 13th degree Freemasons, as everyone knows, and the entire ArbCom is made up of direct descendants of Aleister Crowley. That guy got around even more than you might think.

You really are such a pompous twat.

[Randy from Boise]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So who is the charismatic dictatorial leader, Mr. Bad Analogy?

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So who is the charismatic dictatorial leader, Mr. Bad Analogy?

RfB

I never said that there was any charismatic dictorial leader.

In truth I believe that Wikipedia more closely resembles a command economy such as China.

[Vigilant]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So who is the charismatic dictatorial leader, Mr. Bad Analogy?

RfB

Eric's biggest regret is that he never got to perch his dimpled tuchus atop the golden throne of wikipedia power.

What a foul tyrant he'd have been.
Stalin would have blanched.

[Midsize Jake]

[Beeblebrox]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So true, why I've heard of people who were rude, nasty and condescending all the time. After like a decade of acting in this manner, -bam- they get disappeared in an entirely opaque process and everyone is too scared to say anything about, and it never gets talked about anywhere.

And it's just so very easy to be one of the ones in charge, so long as you know the right people and are in the right club. Most admins are 13th degree Freemasons, as everyone knows, and the entire ArbCom is made up of direct descendants of Aleister Crowley. That guy got around even more than you might think.

You really are such a pompous twat.

You really are entirely lacking in any sense of irony.

[Poetlister]

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So who is the charismatic dictatorial leader, Mr. Bad Analogy?

RfB

Isn't it obvious? It's our own Mr Midsize, hiding behind the curtain, and also running this site to divert attention.

[Bezdomni]

It is democratic to the extent that anyone can turn up and comment. The fact that the vast bulk of even the regular editors have no idea that the discussion is happening is just an inconvenient little detail. And of course in the case of the Daily Mail, many US editors would never have seen a copy and would have no clue what the issue is.

Of course, Wikipedia shares with most democracies the fact that if you show up with constructive criticism, you may be 'disappeared.'

Oh wait, that's 'fascist dictatorships.' My bad.

Wikipedia undoubtedly more closely resembles a fascist dictatorship than it does a democracy. The disappearing that goes on is only the tip of the iceberg.

So who is the charismatic dictatorial leader, Mr. Bad Analogy?

RfB

I never said that there was any charismatic dictatorial leader.

In truth I believe that Wikipedia more closely resembles a command economy such as China.

50 sen for more thoughts like these. ^^

It wasn't a Brad who reverted my Christmas present in the end. It was Aquillion making their first ever edits to the page who did it. (So I rewrote the lead after some helpful input from DrMies.)


The very next day I was nearly disappeared over my addition and removal of the word "slightly".

Lot of people with lines through their names lately.