A magazine editor is interested in a Wikipedia-critical piece

[boredbird]

So we got a platform to finally write pieces that reveals darker aspects of Wikipedia. But the problem is when it is published, what about the reach?

Yeah anything short of New York Times front page is a waste of effort. That's why I post here instead.

[RetroidHooman]

So we got a platform to finally write pieces that reveals darker aspects of Wikipedia. But the problem is when it is published, what about the reach?

Yeah anything short of New York Times front page is a waste of effort. That's why I post here instead.

Major liberal media outlets would never run truly Wikipedia critical articles anyway since Wikipedia now has an aggressive liberal bias and privileges rags like NYT and WaPo as sources. At best you can draw attention to things like whitewashing of Nazis and the holocaust, which is bad and should be called out, but is only a puny microcosm of Wikipedia's overarching problems.

[rubricatedseedpod]

So we got a platform to finally write pieces that reveals darker aspects of Wikipedia. But the problem is when it is published, what about the reach?

Yeah anything short of New York Times front page is a waste of effort. That's why I post here instead.

Major liberal media outlets would never run truly Wikipedia critical articles anyway since Wikipedia now has an aggressive liberal bias and privileges rags like NYT and WaPo as sources. At best you can draw attention to things like whitewashing of Nazis and the holocaust, which is bad and should be called out, but is only a puny microcosm of Wikipedia's overarching problems.

They would do it over nothing less than child abuse.

[wexter]

Journalism (and especially facts-based reporting on the ground) no longer exists.

An example; Some jerk at Associated Press being flown out to a major story days later and long after the news event took place (Its not Yellow Journalism its just Wimpy Journalism; I will write you a story about a fire-sandwich Tuesday if you lend it to me today);

Based in Las Vegas, I’m used to being dispatched to wildfires in other places. I flew to Hawaii on Wednesday, and by Thursday morning, I was in a helicopter flying over Lahaina, a normally vibrant west Maui town that draws visitors from all over the world. What struck me the most was the lack of color of the scorched earth sandwiched between glistening blue ocean and deep green-brown mountains in the distance. (just search the above text and you will find a hundred iterations of the faux-story)

There was many a hoople-head talking about the fire in Lahaina but nobody was actually there.

There is nary a reporter in the Ukraine or in Russia - you might find one or two and a few anchormen. The dearth of real sources allows bat shit crazy lunatics like Gonzo Lira or Peter Lancaster, to respectively, grift and sell narratives from the ground. Btw the low intensity war is being fought over hedge rows and grain fields similar to Normandy but without the manpower and material. It is literally cow farmers versus the Russian stooper-power led by Alfred E Putin Neuman. Since there are no reporters you can use Google maps to grock the cow pasture-y conflagration of this low-war -- Unfortunately no lowcows were harmed in the describing of this debacle.

How does this relate to Wikipedia?
-It is repeating abject nonsense from wire sources; and the parrot farm which is the Internet
-There is no fourth estate providing Wikipedia with external accountability

When an academic comes out with a report on Wikipedia a bunch of outlets might pick up the story in hopes it provides them with a revenue stream. Stories about Wikipedia don't really sell... there are just too many words... and complicated concepts... if we have faux-news there is room for a faux-cyclopedia.

Then the next "wire story" comes along...

The big story is that Wikipedia is not "shiny new" technology-thingy social-network anymore.... not only is it a half baked idea and a cult; it is done over kaput.. it is being replaced..

[ericbarbour]

Journalism (and especially facts-based reporting on the ground) no longer exists.

You're not wrong. Print media is being slowly strangled by the Web and journalism is going for the ride. Journalists are helping to accelerate the death of their own employment, by using and freely quoting from Wikipedia, as if it were "accurate history". Sometimes it is and sometimes not and not enough people care.

But then "real journalism" was always more of a specialty product. Reporting generally had to sell dead trees or it was useless. If you wanted "actual complicated facts", you went to independent "non-newspaper" sources like The Nation, private newsletters or magazines that did not actually specialize in news reporting, the New Yorker or Esquire (or even Playboy) being obvious examples. It's truly disgusting that a girly magazine was also an unusually neutral news outlet. America, you so funny.

An example; Some jerk at Associated Press being flown out to a major story days later and long after the news event took place

There's a term for this: "parachute journalism". And if they show up in mobs, it's "pack journalism".

The big story is that Wikipedia is not "shiny new" technology-thingy social-network anymore.... not only is it a half baked idea and a cult; it is done over kaput.. it is being replaced..

You wanna see something very perversely Wikipedian? I.F. Stone was famous in the mid-20th century as a truly independent journalist who ran his own newsletter. He had a long and distinguished career. Won many awards despite not being affiliated with a major publication.

Have a look at his Wikipedia bio; it talks about his distinguished journalism career, but it also blubbers on and on that he "might have been a Soviet spy". This subject was beaten into the ground before I was born, and they're still beating on it, 34 years after Stone's death. Remember that he was a hardcore leftist and a pro-Israel Jew, both of which should make him a hero to Wikipedia insiders--and yet Wikipedia STILL wants to shit on Stone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone
The largest contributor to that article was permablocked as a sockpuppet of Mhazard9, a notorious figure in the "Race and Intelligence" war and often accused of being Otto Placik, a plastic surgeon who tried to glorify himself on WP. Epic fuckhead Mathsci didn't like Mhazard9; thus, WP nitwits chased him obsessively. What's REALLY going on here? You tell me. THIS is what makes Wikipedia an unreliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chas._Caltrop

[wexter]

Thanks for the info on Stone {who was a gap in my general knowledge, no more) (his newsletters are accessible in that they have been scanned - the index in his journal is massive).

Stone talks about the organizing of information..which is what a newsletter does. Today, there are no primary sources worthy of organization.


He talks about lots of things here from Edward Teller to politicians; or "bringing the press into the family," "the basic purpose of the media is merchandising." Anyone could have called BS on the Gulf of Tonkin...

From the outset I.F. Stone’s Weekly (1953–67; I.F. Stone’s Bi-Weekly, 1967–71) had an influence far greater than the size of its readership. Among early subscribers were Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Eleanor Roosevelt. The newsletter, staffed only by Stone and his wife, was researched, written, and edited by Stone. It set high journalistic standards and could be found in the homes of some of the most prominent politicians, academicians, and journalists in the nation. https://www.britannica.com/biography/I-F-Stone

BTW here is the major Ukrainian "breakthrough" on the map.. I counted ten houses (no cows or low-cows visible)


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Urozh ... &entry=ttu