Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/In the media
Discuss this story
The 60 Minutes segment was a complete whitewash; a total farce; a complete joke; telling nothing of how wiki really is. I thought it was sickening. HalfGig talk 02:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- While it was, ah, light on substance, I think it's unfair to be so heavily critical. I don't think the WMF got to see it, either, before it ran—Sue Gardner is "Jimbo Wale's lieutenant"? Hello? ResMar 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for the news coverage of Wikipedia where they talk to the people who create it, & not to the people at the top who barely know how the content is created that attracts all the attention. In other words, recognize that Wikipedia is not like the corporate world. -- llywrch (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wiki is similar to any large organization in that the top and even mid management is clueless as to what is really going on at the worker bee (editor) level. HalfGig talk 10:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- re: "look at all these people reading about Elizabethan poetry. There's nothing to sell them." - Best ever justification for the non-profit status of Wikipedia. I never cared about the whole "open-source Bazaar" Socialist hype, but this one clicked. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was the best mainstream media piece about Wikipedia that I've ever seen. It gave the basics pretty well, in my view, and I'm just a humble content creator and copy editor. For example, it noted that anyone can edit, it noted that the editors are an open source community, and it noted that we do it for the love of sharing knowledge. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- 100,000? Where does that number come from? And we're not all that smart. Of course, the ones who aren't are likely the ones we have problems with.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)