Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wikipedia Woos Users as Interest Wanes
> Media Forums > News Worth Discussing
thekohser
Wikipedia Woos Users as Interest Wanes

- by Sheila Shayon, for brandchannel

The usual garbage journalism. Although the comment from David Gerard inspired me to write a few comments of my own. This, of course, makes it worth reading.

QUOTE
Gregory Kohs United States says:

Actually, Shirley, David Gerard is trying to dupe you. You were about correct in the first place. Wikia actually is the commercial arm of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation that operates Wikipedia.

Not too long ago, there were five members of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sixty percent of them were Wikia, Inc. employees. Wikia uses references to their staff's experience with Wikipedia in numerous promotional efforts. When Jimmy Wales speaks at conferences -- even ones sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation -- his PowerPoint decks always come emblazoned with the Wikia, Inc. logo. Lastly, in January 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation needed more office space. They decided behind closed doors that Wikia, Inc. would be their choice for renting space (for thousands of dollars a month, of course). After they approached the CEO of Wikia, Inc., the CEO responded that the WMF shouldn't be going about it this way. Let me put it in Gil Penchina's own words:

"...we ended up asking them to get competitng quotes from other landlords so that THEY could feel comfortable with the decision."

Shirley, if you're a true journalist, you would investigate and report on these shenanigans. But, I have a feeling you'll just take David Gerard's word on it, that there's nothing to see here, and you'll not even wonder whether the semi-official UK spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation (David Gerard) just might have a conflict of interest here.
dtobias
Legally speaking, they're totally separate organizations even if there are some incestuous relationships among their personnel.
thekohser
QUOTE(dtobias @ Thu 12th August 2010, 1:34pm) *

Legally speaking, they're totally separate organizations even if there are some incestuous relationships among their personnel.


Is "commercial arm" a legally binding description? Is "founder"?
Moulton
A century ago, when Teddy Roosevelt was busting the big trusts (like the big Standard Oil Trust), one of the features of those trusts were "interlocking directorates" (meaning the same people were on the Board of Directors) of the companies comprising the trusts.
SB_Johnny
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 12th August 2010, 2:10pm) *

A century ago, when Teddy Roosevelt was busting the big trusts (like the big Standard Oil Trust), one of the features of those trusts were "interlocking directorates" (meaning the same people were on the Board of Directors) of the companies comprising the trusts.

Which would be fine if, say, the Gates Foundation had most of the same members as Microsoft. Less so if the Gates Foundation was primarily focused on Linux development.
A User
I've been unable to access that webpage. I get a message thus:

"The specified request cannot be executed from current Application Pool" ?? Odd..
Moulton
QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Fri 13th August 2010, 6:15am) *
I've been unable to access that webpage. I get a message thus:

"The specified request cannot be executed from current Application Pool" ?? Odd..

Google Cache is your friend.
thekohser
QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Fri 13th August 2010, 6:15am) *

I've been unable to access that webpage. I get a message thus:

"The specified request cannot be executed from current Application Pool" ?? Odd..


I've contacted the ladies who wrote and maintained the article, to see what's cookin'. Maybe the accusations of COI against Hayford Peirce brought an urgent take-down notice from his buds at the Berkman Center at Harvard, since he's an alumnus.
A User
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 13th August 2010, 9:13pm) *

Google Cache is your friend.


Indeed it is. Interesting...
thekohser
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 13th August 2010, 10:40am) *

QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Fri 13th August 2010, 6:15am) *

I've been unable to access that webpage. I get a message thus:

"The specified request cannot be executed from current Application Pool" ?? Odd..


I've contacted the ladies who wrote and maintained the article, to see what's cookin'. Maybe the accusations of COI against Hayford Peirce brought an urgent take-down notice from his buds at the Berkman Center at Harvard, since he's an alumnus.


I was told that their entire site was hit last night by a DoS attack. It's back up now.

However, I have learned that Shirley Brady (Editor, Brandchannel) and Sheila Shayon (Freelance contractor, Brandchannel) don't have the journalistic mettle that I had hoped for. In response to some detailed information that I sent them about the close-knit relationship between Wikia, Inc. and the Wikimedia Foundation, the reply from Sheila (and seconded by Shirley) was:

QUOTE
I have read the materials you sent extrapolating on Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales.

It is indeed a story that merits journalistic attention but this is not the mission of Brand Channel, and as a freelancer - I am not in the position to pursue it any further.


I guess ethical accountability is "outside the scope" of quite a number of venues, eh?

Also, Shirley added:

QUOTE
Comments are now closed as this is getting out of hand (and Pierce contacted
me to say that comments were being posted as him).


They have important stories to get back to, I'm sure.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.