?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Sun, Mar. 4th, 2007, 01:32 am
swisscelt: Now what?

So now that EssJay has [apparently] left Wikipedia, and a cadre of administrators, stewards, and the like are doing their level best to sweep the whole incident under the rug, what's left to do? We're being told to discuss this on the Village Pump, but I see nothing there. On the Community Noticeboard, an ad hoc (and highly disorganized, IMO) discussion is brewing, but already people are calling for its closure.

I've said it before: This is serious. We can't just pretend that because this is happening on Teh Intrawebz it won't be taken seriously in the American media and, ultimately, American and other national societies. How Wikipedia deals with this is as crucial to the continuing survival of this enterprise as any corporate scandal was to their respective companies. It's time we ALL grew up: This is the real world, people.

Sun, Mar. 4th, 2007 08:53 am (UTC)
swisscelt

Your comments describe this to be a huge conspiracy cover-up that is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia.

Heh... talk about reading between the lines.

It's a cover-up. That's all... and not a particularly good one at that. That's not the problem-- it's exactly what I'd expect in the wake of something like this.

The problem is that this didn't break in the Weekly World Reader. It broke in the New Yorker. That makes it at least as serious a credibility issue as the flap over John Siegenthaler. Moreover, as credibility issues like this mount, the larger issue of how this project is not taken seriously will increase.

No conspiracy to it, really.

Sun, Mar. 4th, 2007 09:03 am (UTC)
njyoder

It's a disorganized, herd mentality style "cover-up" (using this a bit loosely) at that. Whenever something really stupid happens they always rush to come up with whatever excuses they can and then immediately declare "omg it's old news."

When Wales tried whitewashing his own Wikipedia article, tons of Wikipedians, especially more prominent ones, stepped in for damage control and defended him, even though this action would have been blanket-condemned had it been done by a non-prominent Wikipedian. In that case, Wales even tried disabling the "glamour photography" portion of his website completely so people couldn't find the soft porn pictures he had on it.

One would think that abuse of power by 'high ranking' Wikipedians would be taken more seriously. It isn't though, in large part because the higher up ones are a) religiously devoted to Wikipedia's greatness (cognitive dissonance) and b) very immature, especially when it comes to their authority.

Sun, Mar. 4th, 2007 05:50 pm (UTC)
ghostinside

Well buddy, you can't quote where you're inferring that I think "Wikipedia is shit and it doesn't matter".

I can however quote that you said, "There's no conspiracy, unless of course you speak of a conspiracy of apathy. Otherwise, what we're really dealing with here is good ol'-fashioned coverup. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see this." Which clearly, and as your response says, you think there's a cover-up and if it "doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see this", means you liken them the same.

You are spinning this beyond what is being said. You are saying that the cover-up is bothering you because you want WP to handle it better especially with the incident's publicity? Right? Now you're back tracking and saying the cover-up isn't the problem, but just it's publicity. They go hand in hand.

What did you mean by this exactly then if not that you view this cover-up to be a serious scandal:
"We can't just pretend that because this is happening on Teh Intrawebz it won't be taken seriously in the American media and, ultimately, American and other national societies. How Wikipedia deals with this is as crucial to the continuing survival of this enterprise as any corporate scandal was to their respective companies. It's time we ALL grew up: This is the real world, people."

"Once the story was picked up by the US media, it became a big deal."
You do realize the online NYer can hardly be described as the "US Media" at large, right?

Like I said, talk about the scale of the scandal when it can be verified; when you can prove it's larger than a corrected online article of the NYer.

And that article is still preaching to choir.