gregory.varnum at gmail
Jun 27, 2012, 12:16 PM
Post #14 of 26
Before conspiracy theories go too far - I do think it is worth noting that the possible missteps by the press (and not Jimmy) that folks are suggesting do indeed happen often.
News outlets need to attract readers to make ad sales. The reality is that not many non-Wikimedians know, or care, about who Jimmy is. It is in the paper's best interest to make that link for the reader to get more attention for the article.
There have been many times when I have submitted things to news outlets and specifically asked them NOT to include my organization affiliations - but they do it anyway. So, yes, the notion that the press inserted his link to Wikipedia is absolutely plausible and happens often. The notion that folks submitting content to the press have any control over what the press does with it at that point is absolutely false.
I think anyone that has been interviewed by the press more than a dozen times has had experiences of the reporter doing the exact opposite of what you request, or completely messing up your quote. It happens.
I do not know what happened here, but the idea that Jimmy never mentioned Wikipedia or Wikimedia anywhere in his writing, and that the press inserted it for him, would absolutely not surprise me as it has happened to me before.
Just wanted to add that as I sensed some folks were quicker to believe Jimmy was to "blame" than the press - who in my experience are just as often the culprit in disagreements like this.
While I do not agree with this view, a number of folks in the press have also told me they do not see linking a person to their "claims to fame" imply they are then speaking on behalf of those causes (they often use former elected officials, who retain their prefix titles, as examples). Again, I disagree, but have heard that multiple times from reporters at different news outlets - I would not be surprised to learn that the copy-editor, or whomever, felt the same here.
On 27 Jun, 2012, at 2:57 PM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers [at] gmail> wrote:
> Message: 4
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100
>> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail>
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
>> <CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=119bQ [at] mail
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
>> I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
>> be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
>> that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
>> founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
>> with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
>> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
>> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>> SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who
> expressed an opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.
> Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy
> was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on
> Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to
> differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was
> planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens
> when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community
> with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA
> blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and
> the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists