Remember that Wikipedia documentary that was mentioned in the 2007-08 Wikipedia fund drive video (the one with Jimbo's wringing hands and those creep-creep-creepity eyes)? It was originally slated for release in Spring 2008, and it would appear from the various YouTube updates to have finished principal photography in mid-2007. The Wikipedia article now claims it is still in post-production and that "The film will be released in time for 2009 film festival submissions." However, it would appear to have missed the deadlines for all of the major festivals, except for Venice, which is coming up very soon.

The film has a page on Wikia, which has not been edited since October 2007. It would appear from the top of the page that Wikia is raising funds for the film, although it is the WMF that gets the co-producer credit on the IMDb page. One wonders if that special Wikia magic has doomed the project.

The wp article states that Larry Sanger is in the doc. Is there going to be any talk about founder vs. cofounder?

Don't think this went unnoticed. You're brilliant, Cedric.

Last time I visited the Wikia site for Truth in Numbers, it was sporting this template on top, warning that "wikipedia is a dangerous cult". That lasted for a few weeks.

The FAQ about donating should be a tell-tale sign of fail.

I love how the last paragraph just ends with the word "Chinese".

A global test of human nature in our accelerating times, indeed.

WTF??? What were they planning on doing? Planting $100 bills on the sidewalk outside the theater and training hidden cameras on them?

EDIT: Oops! My bad. I forgot to cue Keyboard Cat:

The FAQ mentions the Film Arts Foundation as being the film's sponsor. The FAF's website states the organization is disbanding and all operations should be "winding down" by early 2009. Their board's last meeting is on June 29th, I guess to tell everyone that that's a wrap?

So maybe losing their sponsor is the reason the film isn't coming out?

The San Fransisco Film Society took over stewardship of the FAF's films, but I did not find "Truth in Numbers" on their website.

A shame, they filmed me chugging beers at a Sydney meetup when Jimbo came to town....
Cas

If so, that might explain the delay. What's a good Wikipedia apologetic without an endorsement from Jimmy Wales?

For anybody who has any correct apprehension of the nerdly teenage mom's-basement wargamers who actually run most of Wikipedia, the picture of some adult out in public with friends chugging beers would actually improve the image. Don't sweat it.

I still cannot find any info on what apparently killed this project (other than the magic ring of fail that surrounds Wikia), but I did discover these interesting little factoids:

On May 16, 2008, User:Zrice, an "SPA", altered the Wikipedia article to claim that "This will be the first film to extensively and exclusively cover the phenomenon and global implications of Wikipedia." This claim still appears in the current version.

As some of you may remember, this pompous claim is demonstrably false. In April 2008, Dutch public television broadcast the documentary "The Truth According to Wikipedia". It was discussed here in this thread (it was that film that started with the annoying wiki-nerd that blathered on about books and card catalogs as if they were curious artifacts that had just been unearthed from an archeological dig). Apparently, the wikipediot mind is incapable of grasping the concept that in order for a film to be the "first" at anything, it must be produced into a final cut that is then released for public viewing.

Other editors seem to "get it", however. There have been four attempts to delete this embarrassment from Wikipedia.

There were actually quite a few older folks there - not sure how this compares with other WP meetups though.

On June 10, an IP editor (resolving to "Road Runner HoldCo" in Herndon, VA) added various new bits to the Wikipedia article concerning the production. The next day, User:JBSupreme reverted all of these changes, as well as removing nearly all the production details. He also inserted a "{{fact}}" tag regarding the release date. However, the pompous "first" claim still appears in the significantly reduced article.

This silly claim also appears in Wikipedia's article about itself in the "Cultural significance" section. What makes it even more ridiculous is that the April 2008 broadcast of the actually completed documentary, The Truth According to Wikipedia, is mentioned in the same paragraph! It has been there since April 9, 2008. More than a year has passed, and they still can't figure out that 2008 came before 2009.

Somebody should just change "first" to "tardiest". It would be truthful, and hardly anyone would notice that.

My bid for an ArbCom unban is still in the hopper, so I'd better not make this edit.

Greg, you should know that there is no hopper for the wikied...

July 10th, Saturday night, 8:00 PM, Poland.

Be there for the great unveiling.

I see there is a session on Wikiversity and another one on Governance Issues.

Verrrry interesting, particularly in light of the fact that the WP article is as dead as ever (it was deleted over six months ago), the Wikia page still has not had an edit since October 2007 and the webpages of the filmmakers regarding it do not appear to have been updated, either. Then there's this. All of this naturally begs the questions of who ended up making the final cut, what was left in or cut out, and whether or not this film will ever see a public release.

I am seriously beginning to wonder if this "documentary" film was ever anything but a vanity project financed through Wikia.

Well it looks like it might have value as an object lesson in the failure of open source and other projects with ill defined lines of authority and responsibility. Right up there with Shoemaker's Holiday's Episode 45: Plan from Outer Space.

Truth in Numbers? has its production company, Glen Echo Entertainment. Trailer is found here.

It looks like they've created something that (at least half of which) is a fairly powerful critique of the project.

The trailer poses some of the right questions anyhow. OTOH, Jimbo is a very annoying speaker and he is in it with those googly eyes.

Oh dear! Oh dear! It appears it may be an actual documentary after all, and there is little joy in wikiville about it. Actually, I think that Glen Echo was involved on this project right from the beginning, or near the beginning. That trailer dates back to 2008.

I do so hope that "ragesoss" is right about this:
Imagine the possibilities!

May I quote?



Regardless of whatever else this guy said, that misuse of words -- twice -- makes me want to beat him with a tire iron.

Hee, hee! What I also find amusing is the way that both bloggers strain to put a positive spin on the whole affair, despite it being clear through even their slanted reporting that this screening landed like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl.

Yes, the summary by Sage Ross...



...reminded me of when my junior high school's lame 2-8 football team would get pasted on the field by the opposing school, but we would cobble together a retort like, "Yeah, but our marching band was better than theirs."

Leave it to the paid Wikipedian to choose the "emotional" consolation prize over the "intellectual" victory.

That's the kind of trailer you might make before editing is complete and it is not certain what direction the film will take. That they gained access to views well beyond the kool-aide drinkers gives them many more choices. I will follow with interest.

Howard Zinn weighs in on the trailer as a critic before his passing. I couldn't make out the blurb by Chomsky . Zinn is more an old leftist while Chomsky has anarchist tendencies. He might have a more favorable views than Zinn. That will be interesting to note.

I guess now I have my answer.

Also, Signpost reports that it was none other than "Witty lama", a/k/a Liam Wyatt, a/k/a "Volunteer Wikipedian in Residence at the British Museum", that was the "one volunteer" who "was visibly wounded" by the film. They also summarize Sue Gardner's observation "that it should become apparent to the viewers that the critics mostly belonged to an older generation struggling with the change that Wikipedia represented." That's right, Sue! It was "mostly" The Grups that criticized Wikipedia. In The Before Time, in The Long, Long Ago. "Mostly".

The thing about narcissists in general, though, is that if you sit them down in a room and deliver a speech (or show them a documentary) that contains both praise and criticism, they'll ignore the praise - and focus almost totally on the fact that you've criticized them - and virtually all criticism is "unfair," "suspiciously motivated," "just plain wrong," "easily countered," and so on.

I suspect this documentary thingy is probably still mostly pro-WP, and probably falls for the usual traps (i.e., the bogus "inclusionism vs. deletionism" BS, the idea that vandalism is a "problem" for them, and the notion that the WMF is a "charity" and a "service provider (not a publisher)" being accepted at face value). That doesn't mean it won't contain a few valid criticisms - I'm sure it does, but I wouldn't take the WP'ers' reactions as evidence of much of anything.

I transcribed the quotations from the 'other half''. Can anyone identify the anonymous one who said "one moron and two CIA bureacrats destroyed everything I had created"?

"The person simply seeking some information cannot rely upon what's found in any given Wikipedia article at any given moment" Robert McHenry, Former chief editor, Encyclopedia Britannica.

"When you make it anonymous you are pretending to objectivity, and you are pretending there is no point of view" Professor Howard Zinn, Author A People's History of the United States.

"The problem of course with Wikipedia is that anyone can put their two cents in - and they do".
Dr. Robert J. Littman, Honolulu university.

"There's no one in control. It's intellectual and cultural anarchy"
Andrew Keen - Author, The Cult of the Amateur http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cult-Amateur-Inter...g/dp/1857883934 .

"One moron and two CIA bureacrats destroyed everything I had created" (Anonymous)

"You can get hurt on Wikipedia" - John Seigenthaler (former NBC nightly news; founder, the Freedom Forum).

"A very small number of people are doing a very large percentage of the work"
Chris Wilson, writer, Slate Magazine http://www.slate.com/id/2184487 .

"Intelligence is not a matter of just collecting from anybody and shovelling it into a format"
James Woolsey, former director of the CIA.

"That somehow by some magic having anyone able to edit something makes it somehow better ... why?"
Susan Jacoby - Author, The Age of American Unreason http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreaso...y/dp/0375423745 .

Wow, sounds like a great movie. Now all it needs is a high-profile film critic who can get it a grand review that will be seen by millions of people. I wonder where we can find such a person.

In all seriousness, the film could probably get DVD distribution without a problem -- there are a number of labels that would love a film like this. A U.S. theatrical release might be more difficult, given the nature of indie film today, but that's not to say that it can't be possible.

It depends on how you define "theatrical release". Fahrenheit 9/11 had a theatrical release, but the nearest theater willing to show it required a two-hour drive. All nearer outlets were a uniform blur of bourne-the-day-after-good-friday tripe.

Paper or plastic. Does it really matter? Surely once the production costs are recouped in some form or fashion, spreading one's message takes a higher priority, especially for documentary films.

Can you double check this? John Michael Siegenthaler is the former NBC News anchorman. He is the son of John Lawrence Siegenthaler, whose BLP was hacked. Was the quote really form the son, not the father?

This ain't "Fahrenheit 9/11," by any stretch of the imagination -- outside of our merry circle and the kids on the mothership, the vast majority of Americans have no idea who Jimbo is. This film will spur no controversy beyond Wiki meet-ups and a pool party at Lar's mansion.

If this film was picked up by a U.S. distributor, its theatrical release would be limited to art house cinemas -- one venue per major metropolitan area in a platform release (one city at a time). The film would probably make zilch at the box office (unless they use Lara's pictures in the advertising), but if it is lucky it could harvest some fine reviews that will help sell it further to cable TV, DVD and VOD.

The problem, however, is that there is a glut of films being shopped around and only a tiny finite number of distribution outlets for them. My fear is that this film will wander the festival circuit for years and then get a small DVD label with no PR budget to release it. Too many great films wind up in that sorry fate.

My pool parties are never controversial, (well, hardly ever) and I certainly do not have a "mansion".

(snipped lots of interesting insight into film distribution)

I commented on Zak Greant's post http://zak.greant.com/wikimania/#comment-1156 on my blog here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/cult-of-...ig-vs-keen.html

Eh, phooey. Lar, you're just hiding behind your piles of money. With your savings account and my connections, we could take "Truth in Numbers" to the Oscars.

Oscar's?

Nah, I'm talking the real stuff. Lar needs to spend more time with me and my Hollywood pals. If he sticks with me, Lar can find himself on the Academy Awards red carpet with Megan Fox on one arm, Jessica Alba on the other arm, and Halle Berry on the other arm!

If they're lucky. More likely it will be buried. Even Trekkies was a more interesting and colorful subject.


Again, if it goes that far, they will be extremely fortunate. Don't be too surprised if it shows at a couple of festivals, to empty houses, and rapidly disappears. Too dull, subject too obscure, no emotional connection to average people's lives.

Marketing documentaries is a very tough business, and if you don't have a clever, well-edited film, you're toast. Say what you will about people like Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock, they know how to make an entertaining film that also informs. You need to sprinkle in some raw, nasty controversy along with the feel-good stuff. Given Wikipedians' extreme and oft-insane hostility towards any kind of criticism plus their obsessive desire to remain anonymous, the people who made this docu might not have been able to get much honest/truthful material in. If they had tried, they would have backed Jimbo into a corner, and asked him about Essjay, Carolyn Doran, Rachel Marsden's BLP, his recent attempt to kill Wikiversity, etc. etc.

You better hope it comes out on DVD or YouTube someday, because I suspect it's the only way most of the people on this forum will ever see it.

Having successfully marketed documentaries, I can say that you are half on target.

I've not seen this film, so I can't say if it would survive the critics, which is essential for a film of this nature. The subject matter is a tough sell, but not impossible -- everyone has heard of Wikipedia, so that helps a lot, and the challenge is selling it as the real story behind the Jimbo crap. (Negative stuff sells, truly.)

You can bring out an audience if you hit the right venues at the right time and if you know how to plumb the media in order to reach the target moviegoers. Just from reading the barest of essentials on this title, I can give the filmmakers a game plan to get the biggest bang for the slightest of bucks.

The best advice I could give is easy: stay off the festival circuit. You can wander that endlessly and never get anyone to see the film.

Speaker in the video is misidentified. It's not John Siegenthaler, Jr (the former NBC news anchor). It's John Siegenthaler, Sr, the founder of The Tenneseean. And he is not the founder of the Freedom Forum, but a senior advisory trustee.

Whoever made that movie was really sloppy.

Eh, something for the "Goofs" section on the film's Internet Movie Database page!

If Jimmy ever quits wikipedia he can always go into acting

Peter, you also got a big part in a feature news article that rips Sage Ross a new one.

Wow I am famous.

Better than seeing it at an art house or film festival anyway. I'd be afraid to get cooties from the Wikipedian movie goers.

DVDs are nice 'cause they are so easily "re-purposed" — don't bother viewing, just fill that hole in the middle and you've got yourself a shiny new coaster.

Jon

There could be a "Rocky Horror" type of a scene going on, with audience members dressing up like their favorite Wikipedia characters and dancing in the aisles to Moulton's song parodies.

I just noticed they have a forum.

http://truthinnumbersthemovie.com/foro/ind...295004a6cf45323

It has already been visited by some of the undead. I joined and advertised Wikipedia Review and other things. Maybe worth a visit.