Press Releases
- Please click here for recent Wikipediocracy press releases.
|
Posted on May 26th, 2014 - (Comments closed) By Hersch
With the advent of the internet, the social response time to mass communication has been radically reduced. This has made possible new social phenomena, as large numbers of people can quickly coordinate their activity in response to a particular set of circumstances. An early example of such phenomena was the “flash mob.” Because of the speed at which these sorts of events transpire, there is not much time for calm reflection, and so a sort of herd (or stampede) impulse comes into play. The political utility of social media was recognized early on, and it was discovered that for a relatively modest investment in infrastructure, one could achieve major political effects. For example, it has been suggested that a few organizations with deep pockets exploited social media to produce the Color Revolutions in former Soviet bloc nations.
.
As Wikipedia emerged as the social networking site with the most Google juice, it became a magnet for propagandists of all varieties. This is despite the fact that Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NOTSOAPBOX, which states that “Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda,” making this one of Wikipedia’s most widely ignored policies. Teams of contestants at Wikipedia use other social media to coordinate their activities and win content disputes, so as to skew Wikipedia article content toward their preferred ideological biases (see “How to control a topic”.) Of course, the way the Wikipedia game is played, all content is supposed to be cited to Reliable Sources. For rapidly-developing current events, there are no scholarly, peer-reviewed sources available. These things take time. Therefore, the only option which remains is to use the news media.
There were two noteworthy articles that recently appeared: “Media bias a problem
…continue reading Is the Social Network Mightier than the Sword?
Posted on May 19th, 2014 - (Comments closed) By Cla68
For whatever reason, Wikipedia (WP) still ranks high in Google search results. Although Wikipedia has been losing regular editors at a fairly steady clip since 2007, its “Google-juice” ensures that it retains significant cachet in the online environment. A large number of people still apparently check Wikipedia first when inquiring about a particular topic. For this reason, activists or proponents of certain ideas, movements, philosophies, subjects, ideologies, or theories presumably have a strong interest in influencing the content of the WP articles on their topic of interest. Doing so is not always easy, because other groups with opposing viewpoints on that topic and who are active in WP may stand in the way, often enforcing the “house POV (point of view)” on that particular topic. This isn’t really fair for the outsider group. So, this post is intended as a guide to help your outside group take over the topic of your choice in Wikipedia.
The in-house protectors of certain topics in WP have a significant advantage. They understand WP’s arcane policies and guidelines and know how to keep opposing editors at arm’s length. If you follow this guide with a sufficient number of people to back you up, however, you should be able to wrestle away control of any topic in WP. Established WP activists are sneaky and will try to trick you into making a mistake that they can use to get you banned or blocked. This guide should help you avoid those traps.
First, get your group together. Go out and recruit people to help in your effort. Wikipedia is structured to use crowdsourcing, which means that the larger crowd ultimately controls the content, all else being equal. The numbers that you need depends on the sensitivity of, and interest in, your topic. Taking over
…continue reading How to control a topic
Posted on May 12th, 2014 - (Comments closed) By Gregory Kohs
This blog post is one of a five-part series of investigative reports by Gregory Kohs, documenting conflicts of interest among individuals and organizations who have financial ties with the Wikimedia Foundation.
The first report is The Thin Bright line The second report is Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag The third report is Business as Usual The fourth report is Wikipedia’s Friends With Benefits The fifth report is Look who’s visiting the WMF
The big news recently at the Wikimedia Foundation was the announced hiring of Silicon Valley tech professional, Lila Tretikov, to replace Sue Gardner as the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Tretikov will take over an annual revenue stream of about $50 million, garnered almost entirely from donors who probably have no idea how little of that money actually goes toward program services that support the WMF mission. Meanwhile, the WMF board of trustees is edging closer and closer to implementing an amended Terms of Use for editors. The amendment would require editors to “disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.”
This rule could become an embarrassing problem for Tretikov, because if past history is any indicator, some of the Wikimedia Foundation’s biggest cash donors seem to regularly flout the ethical demand for disclosure when conflict of interest editing is involved. This is Wikipediocracy’s fourth installment delving into major donors who edit Wikipedia to enhance their profile, but don’t always reveal that they have a conflict of interest. The previous three installments are found here: The Thin Bright Line, Wikipedia donors feel entitled to more than a mug or a tote bag, and Business as Usual.
Mark Amin
One
…continue reading Wikipedia’s Friends With Benefits
|
|
Visit the Wikipediocracy Forum
'Like' our Wikipediocracy page on Facebook.
Follow Wikipediocracy on Twitter!