Wikipedia's war against journalism

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:44 pm

Some may remember a prior incident where a Wikipedia Administrator, the rather hapless Dennis Brown (real name), just unilaterally decided one day to reinterpret the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, specifically their rules on disclosure of conflicts of interest, to mean that journalists seeking to contact Wikipedia users via their Wikipedia talk pages are acting as paid editors, either for their publication or themselves if freelance. Therefore, if they do not provide their full contact details, they can be blocked on sight. This was no theoretical exercise; Dennis, a light bulb salesman with a gambling addict wife, came up with this reinterpretation of the terms to justify his block of a user claiming to be a journalist.

Despite this being a gross and obvious distortion of the meaning of that disclosure requirement, which of course forms part of the legal contract between users and the Foundation, as far as I know, this was not an aberration. Attempts to clarify the situation with the Wikipedia community, in whose name this block was placed, to seek reassurance this really was just a mistake, were rebuffed as essentially a case of 'we don't know what you're saying, but regardless, Dennis is a great guy, and we are sure there is nothing to see here, so now only kindly fuck off'.

The person who made that enquiry, on behalf of the blocked journalist, is of course also now blocked by Wikipedia. That decision was upheld by a Wikipedia Steward, the aptly named There'sNoTime (identity hidden), and it has been suggested elsewhere that this means that act has some legitimacy beyond merely being the act of a private individual. In short, she may have exposed the WMF to liability. I am sceptical, but if that information helps anybody concerned by this and looking to take it further, there it is.

Fast forward to today, and in another spectacular example of over-reach which seems to cast Wikipedia as an enemy of the press, yet another Wikipedia Administrator, C.Fred, another pseudonym, has unilaterally reinterpreted a Wikipedia policy, one that nominally stops users issuing legal threats to each other as a way of chilling discussion, as also encompassing any mention of contacting the media.

Again, this is not an exercise in theory, this Administrator issued the following ultimatum to a blocked user, as part of the appeal process for them to gain an ublock, having been blocked for making legal threats. To get unblocked, as well as promising not to make any more legal threats, they also included this condition, to declare that......
Either that you have not made any statement to the press about conduct on Wikipedia or that you have withdrawn such statement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =855241852

The might just be two examples, but given their seriousness, and that it involved different Administrators, and the likelihood neither are seen as mistakes by either other Administrators or the wider editor base who trust these people to enforce their rules for them, I think it is safe to say the Wikipedia community wishes to create a hostile environment for journalists.

They want to make it as difficult as possible for journalists to contact Wikipedians, in particular making investigative journalism almost impossible. You can't feasibly investigate any Wikipedia issue if you are restricted to only contacting people who have enabled email or otherwise posted contact details, which the vast majority do not. And perhaps understandably, being required to announce yourself as a member of the press immediately puts people on guard and potentially denies the public information that Wikipedia editors, be they witnesses or bad actors, might otherwise freely volunteer.

Secondly, they want to ensure Wikipedia editors are frightened of the consequences of speaking to journalists. There's nothing to stop them doing it privately of course, but if they need to get others to talk as well, perhaps to help journalists verify elements of a story prior to publishing, they are in the same bind if those editors don't give any way to privately contact them.

So, why would the Wikipedia community want to be hostile to journalists? Well, it's simple. They got shit to hide. A lot of shit. Read our forum if you doubt this. The thing Wikipedians fear most, is the outside world ever figuring out how it all really works. This ironically leaves the media space free and clear, to be used for the broadcast of the views of Wikipedians who are more than happy to speak to the press. You might get the idea what that entails, when you consider just how closely the Wikipedia community resembles a cult. The ability to redefine your own rules to say whatever you want for the purposes of maintaining internal security and rebuff any protestations from those deemed outsiders or troublemakers, being an obvious and pertinent example.

As far as their external image goes, the Wikipedians would have you believe you can edit Wikipedia without disclosing your identity, as long as you aren't violating the Terms of Use. And they would have you believe editors are never punished for doing something as socially beneficial as explaining to the public how Wikipedia really works.

Try it. Any journalist out there, please try it. If you need story ideas on which to base you enquiries, if you need to know which Wikipedians to contact to ask questions of, or get witness statements from, drop us a private message. We are nothing if not eager to learn of your success. Or failure.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by Dysklyver » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:15 pm

And the cult of Wikipedia closes it's ranks... again.

Is there somewhere with more detail of the dennis brown stuff?

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by sashi » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:17 pm

There is, though you should probably follow the link (to WIA) in the post I'm linking to in order to get your bearings.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by AndrewForson » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:53 am

Dennis must be really confused by the fact that administrator User:Panyd has a paid job as a journalist -- under her real-world name of Fiona Apps, (disclosed on her user page) she works for Wikitribune and has an alternate account User:Fiona Apps (work) which "is not an account to edit from, this is just a place for communicating with Wikipedians". Perhaps Dennis does not think being employed by Wikitribune is really being a journalist.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:29 am

AndrewForson wrote:Dennis must be really confused by the fact that administrator User:Panyd has a paid job as a journalist -- under her real-world name of Fiona Apps, (disclosed on her user page) she works for Wikitribune and has an alternate account User:Fiona Apps (work) which "is not an account to edit from, this is just a place for communicating with Wikipedians". Perhaps Dennis does not think being employed by Wikitribune is really being a journalist.
Well, that's weird. I see no mentioned WikiTribune, just Jimmy Wales, like she could be his P.A. or something. But she does indeed work for WT.....

https://www.wikitribune.com/user/fiona-apps/

Community Journalism Manager

Long-time Wikipedian and administrator – celebrated her 10th anniversary in October. Former IT professional. Formerly insufferable philosophy student. Cat owner.

Issue? Shoot me an email at fiona.apps(at)wikitribune.com
If Dennis isn't wanting to be seen as a buffoon, and that is by no means a given, then logically he has to block her until she declares she is employed by WikiTribune, a "newspaper". I am sure he will consider it journalism for the purposes of enforcing the supposed ToU requirement that his role is to protect users from the prying eyes of undeclared journalists.

Dennis is no fan of Jimmy, so he won't be minded to view WT as a friendly outlet and so give her a free pass, even though the chances of them ever write anything critical of Wikipedia seems fanciful. Although tbf, Jimmy has historically been way more critical of Wikipedia than his disciples. Not as much as Dennis, but Dennis has never felt the need to constrain himself to only the facts. In much the same way as he doesn't feel constrained by Wikipedia policy to not block journalists who don't identify.

Even if Dennis isn't brave enough to apply a ToU block to an employee of Wales (who would undoubtedly ask questions about what he thinks he is doing), then if his prior block is also any guide, this too is enough to earn a block of her 'work,' account under WP:NOTHERE....
This is not an account to edit from, this is just a place for communicating with Wikipedians

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:40 pm

I wonder where Fiona, "a Coventry based volunteer administrator", got this factoid from?
80 per cent of the trolling is from unregistered users

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fake-ne ... -committee

It seems to fly in the face of recently concluded research....

https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... e-editors/

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:32 pm

Was randomly reminded today of this gem......
Ethical professional journalists are open and transparent. Anyone claiming the privilege to operate as a professional journalist and ask people questions should identify themself as a paid journalist editor, and disclose who is paying them. If they do not want to identify themself and their employers, they should limit themselves to reading articles, reading article histories and reading talk pages. They can email editors who have chosen to activate email communication. They can report whatever they want as readers, with no limits. If the journalist is working on spec and wants to question volunteer editors on Wikipedia, then they should say, with honesty, "I hope to sell this article to publications A, B and C. I have sold articles to A and B before, and C once expressed an interest in one of my articles". Complete honesty and transparency is what I expect of paid professional journalists who want to edit Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
.....which is this guy......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=19&t=762

That's "one of their best" agreeing with one of their worst, Dennis Brown's unilateral reinterpretation of the Terms of Use to redefine investigative journalism as paid editing.

This is the problem with assuming Wikipedia's problems start and end with anonymity. This guy's identity is known, yet it didn't stop him saying this. He isn't afraid he will lose his job or reputation for being exposed as someone who quite clearly intends to abuse his unpaid volunteer position to ensure that it is not merely a choice of individual Wikipedia editors whether or not they respond to a query from someone who hasn't broken any rules in doing so.

For all his talk of ethics, he isn't risking anything here. He knows nobody is going to report him for this comment, since it is just that, a comment. But he also knows that even when Dennis Brown acted to make this comment a reality, nobody did anything. Dennis' identity is also known, yet he also felt no shame in openly and brazenly abusing his power. He is broke, sure, but that's not because the Wikimedia Foundation or the ACLU sued his ass.

To one of their best, such activity is a threat to Wikipedia. He knows there is plenty for an investigative reporter to discover, much of which probably would not be revealed were it not obtained using the legitimate means of investigative reporting. As such, they need the capability to head that potential threat off at the pass, firstly by supplanting themselves as the lawyers of the WMF, and if necessary by harassing and intimidating the journalist.

What does this prick think Wikipedians would do with advance information of the name and publication of a journalist planning to write an expose of how Wikipedia really works? And why does this prick think Wikipedia should be exempt from the ability of newspapers to write stories about them using pseudonyms? Let Wikipedia or the named Wikipedians sue if they think the report is innaccurate, or if they object in principle to investigative reporting.

Wikipedians are totally unaccountable in Wikipedia, and can't be shamed into it from outside. So the only way this likely stops, really is if these people are sued. So, dear reader, if you have the funds, you have their real names, you have evidence they intend to stop journalists editing Wikipedia the way anybody else is allowed to, and on a clearly bogus quasi-legal basis, and you are reading a critic forum, so it must piss you off that these people are actively preventing the truth of Wikipedia coming out.

These people need to appreciate, actions have consequences. If these are Wikipedia's best people, then let them stand up and be held accountable. Put their money where their mouth is, literally. If he admires Jimmy so much, let him ask him to fund his legal defence. He may be surprised to learn Jimmy doesn't agree with the idea that making shit up as you go along is something he wants to defend in court as Wikipedia's idea of legal and ethical practice.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:40 am

I love it when the stupid shit Wikipediots and their Wikipediocrat sycophants say turns out to be wrong. All it ever takes is time.....

They said it could never happen again, and if it did, the so called journalist would be blocked as an undisclosed paid editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s/Journo10

Unsurprisingly, that isn't what happened. Some, *cough* CARRITE *cough* claimed no protocol was required because common sense would apply. Well, two virtually identical situations, two polar opposite outcomes. Exactly as was predicted.

I guess this is another troll account right? Another sock of mine?

Well, block away. Because sooner or later the blocked person won't just walk away bemused, they'll do something about it.

For everyone's benefit, I will ask again, ARE JOURNALISTS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THEIR IDENTITY ON WIKIPEDIA BEFORE THEY CAN CONTACT USERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF JOURNALISM?

Are they WP:PAID? Are they WP:HERE? Are they WP:TROLLS? Or are they simply entitled to the same rights any other person is? Namely not to be required to disclose information that the Terms of Use do not require of anyone before they are allowed to edit. Better yet, are they to be treated as honoured guests, given it seems widely accepted by you Wikipediots that the illustrious members of the press are all stoopid because their stories are never properly informed about how Wikipedia really works?

It's a simple question. Answer it, in the form of an agreed policy which applies all these disparate claims of jurisdiction to the specific scenario in question, or watch me bring it up again and again until you do, you cowardly ethics dodging making it up as you go along think you're fucking untouchable arrogant pieces of shit.

This episode of Wikipedia:U Can't Make This Shit Up was brought to you by Tony Ballioni, ably assisted by Alex Shih, TNT, Yunshui, and of course, the guy without which none of this would have even been a thing at all, Dennis Brown.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:15 pm

CrowsNest wrote:To one of their best, such activity is a threat to Wikipedia. He knows there is plenty for an investigative reporter to discover, much of which probably would not be revealed were it not obtained using the legitimate means of investigative reporting. As such, they need the capability to head that potential threat off at the pass, firstly by supplanting themselves as the lawyers of the WMF, and if necessary by harassing and intimidating the journalist.

What does this prick think Wikipedians would do with advance information of the name and publication of a journalist planning to write an expose of how Wikipedia really works? And why does this prick think Wikipedia should be exempt from the ability of newspapers to write stories about them using pseudonyms? Let Wikipedia or the named Wikipedians sue if they think the report is innaccurate, or if they object in principle to investigative reporting.

Well, as I've said here before.....journalists seem to be giving Wikipedia a wide berth. I still suspect it is a very simple equation: they use it for fact-checking themselves, and so are unwilling to poke around in the guts of the monster. And they do know it's a monster: the book about Wikipedia's rancid history that I co-authored was shopped around to numerous publishers and agents; not one would touch it, for fear of the Wikimedia Foundation and its cash reserves (and legal department). And for fear of Jimbo, repeatedly proven to be just another classic vengeful Internet troll. Complete with a substantial fan following.

Can you really expect journalists to poke deeply into Wikipedia today, anyway? Try searching Google News for stories about "the death of journalism". It's been a constant refrain for at least 30 years that I can remember. Because the USA is becoming more corrupt and paranoid, there is less and less interest in investigative reporting, and so the corruption is not reported, and so there is more corruption, people have ever-shorter attention spans, the political scene is becoming a constant hellstorm, etc. etc.

This is a story from July. Typical handwringing (while denying it is "handwringing") by someone who works in the field: an employee of a traditional newspaper. No business has lost more ground in the Internet era than traditional newspapers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mad ... 1c089853a7
Thirty years ago, I had a unionized, full-time job with benefits working for the Associated Press in Boston, covering the shenanigans in the Massachusetts Statehouse. And I was not alone. The AP had a bureau of three or four reporters, and United Press International had nearly as many. The Boston Globe had a half-dozen staffers in the building, and the Herald had a reporter and a columnist. All of the newspapers from the state’s medium-sized cities also had at least one reporter at the Statehouse, as did a bunch of suburban dailies and local television and radio stations.

Well sir, I'm sorry. The business is changing. Your readers were among the smarter members of society anyhow--Joe Blow doesn't want investigative journalism over his beer and pretzels, he wants to be entertained. He was always like this and he remains so. The NY Daily News was more noted for running trash and lurid nonsense anyway; trash still sells, and if you can't make it work today, the Kardashians or a cable-tv channel or someone with a website will do it for you.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Wikipedia's war against journalism

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:22 pm

And as long as we're talking about journalism, have you ever heard of something called Civil? It's a REALLY disgusting story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/styl ... civil.html
Journalists running Civil newsrooms continue to express belief in the company. Larry Ryckman, the editor of The Colorado Sun, expressed his faith and optimism in Civil several times in conversation a few days after the token sale failed in mid-October.

If the Great Journalists can fall for a lame blockchain gimmick like that, well of course they can accept Wikipedia at face value. "Journalism is dying" partly because the journalists themselves are helping to strangle it.

Post Reply