Ognistysztorm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 11:02 am
One solution is find some trans journos who got wronged by Wikipedia by some reason and give them the guts to put themselves as bylines to the stories.
One thing that co-authoring a book about Wikipedia history and trying to market it to book publishers is this: journalists in general tend to be lazy cowards. And love WP because they can use it to check facts. WP has ALREADY wronged some journalists, they have been publicly complaining about it, and very little has resulted.
Go and ask Sharyl Attkisson about Wikipedia. Just as a most-obvious example. She has been going off on how WP operates (or fails) for years. One of her many blog posts:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/the ... wikipedia/
Or you could ask the
Register journalists who wrote uncomplementary (but TRUE) stories about WP's lunatic internal society. Some of them, and the Register itself, are being shat upon by WP, to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Register
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski (see the talkpage!)
And Cade Metz does not have a WP bio, and probably never will--because he ran items that made them look very bad, long ago.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t/Workshop
"based on the totality of the evidence presented" There is nothing there to substantiate a claim that my behavior was unacceptable: a substantial amount of smoke, but no fire. Hurting the project's credibility? According to The Regiter's Cade Metz, Wikipedia does not have credibility, it is a cult and it is run by a cabal. In short, Wikipedia is a cult. Or at least, the inner circle is a cult. We aren't the first to make this observation. On the inside, they reinforce each other's beliefs. And if anyone on the outside questions those beliefs, they circle the wagons. They deny the facts. Cade Metz [1].
It would be a sad day for the project when it allows biased opinions masqueraded as "reporting" on the project, its editors, and the principles upon which it stands, influence editorial and/or policy decisions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've only ever seen you talk negatively about the Register's article, are you now saying it's a credible source? If so, I may need to go back to the evidence page. If not, why are you quoting it to bolster your argument (something about a cake, and eating it?)? For the Record, I am against desysopping jossi. In other areas of WP he seems to do a great job, it is only in this sphere of articles I have concerns regarding his actions. -- Maelefique (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Evgeny Morozov has criticized Wikipedia heavily, in past op-ed columns and especially in his books
The Net Delusion and
To Save Everything, Click Here. This is his "reward".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Morozov
Andrew Keen's relatively short book
The Cult Of The Amateur had plenty of dismissive things to say about WP. Look at the talkpage for his WP article. Even Jimbo Wales The Wiki God shows up to argue with the nerds. Don't ask me about Steven Walling--he swallowed the kool-aid hard, and despite being pushed out of the WMF, he continues to edit WP routinely. The little bastard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Keen
I can dig up other examples.