Jennifer Leggio of ZDNet is Wrong (Wikipedia 2008)

FROM THE ARCHIVES: November 30, 2008

Wikipedia is getting a fresh round of scrutiny amidst observations that contribution has dropped precipitously in the last year.

Related Post: Unabashed Plea: Leave Wikipedia Aloooooone (sob)

See Also: Communications During Terrorist Attacks are Not Bad - Schneier on Security

ZDNet article by Jennifer Leggio (November 28th, 2008)

Mumbai attack coverage demonstrates (good and bad) maturation point of social media

The content on Page 2 leaves me with two choices. Either she does not understand Wikipedia, or is using it as a punching bag to make some grandiose claim about the shortcomings of social media and citizen journalism.

I attempted to clarify. See that FriendFeed conversation here. Note that she issues me a “correction” and did not respond to my concern that she flat out does not understand how Wikipedia works.

The Wikipedia article pictured on page 2 was seeded with valid information and grew from there. She saw it defaced for a moment, but didn’t manage to get a “screen shot.” She got the “screen shot” from a friend.

Here is the latest revision of the Wikipedia entry titled “November 2008 Mumbai attacks”. I looked for the revision she cites, and failed to find it. Needless to say, that’s beside the point See below.

At the time of this writing (half-past Midnight the morning of November 30) the article has extensive information, time lines, pictures, and 179 references. The number of entries in the Page history is in excess of 1500.

Is it possible Jennifer and her friend don’t understand that a Wikipedia article about a disaster such as this is the result of thousands of contributions? Does she not understand that for it to appear as she shows it, someone has to delete all of the content and replace it with “Bush Sucks?”

Does she not know that this sort of defacement is extremely noticeable to the hundreds of people making contributions in real time, and the next contributor will simply “undo” the defacement before making their changes?

She is betraying a stunning ignorance or bias here. I have less and less patience with lazy opinion pieces, or pieces that take cheap shots to make some trumped-up case. And in light of the tragedy of the actual events in Mumbai, I am appalled that it is reduced to “Bush Sucks.” I must say, in this case “ZDNet Sucks” also.

How many more ways can “main-stream media” fail? I’m not sure I know the answer to that one.

UPDATE:
Found the notorious defacement(s). Two of them. Lasting 5 and 7 seconds for a grand total of 12. 

OMG STOP THE PRESSES. WIKIPEDIA IS BROKEN. I CAN HAZ PULITZER NOW?

My last comment on the article:

I will eagerly anticipate articles from ZDNet on how wikipedia has attained the success it has now, and what can be improved.

I will not entertain casual sniping at one of the best examples of a massive collaborative effort to date.

I wonder if Jennifer, and others at ZDNet would care to take an “official” anti-wikipedia position, and explain that this in no way is affected by business motives and an erosion of the authority of such as ZDNet. Looking forward to it!

Arrington & Laporte Kerfuffle (Gillmor Gang) - Why it happened

In which I dissect an unusual and particularly heated kerfuffle — which could result in a permanent break betwixt Twit.tv and the Gillmor Gang.

UPDATE:

Media enclosure: Laporte and Arrington talk and make up after the kerfuffle. The audio was difficult to locate, as the Gillmor Gang show page has been removed from TechCrunch, resulting in dead links via Google searches. Conversation gets going around 11:00 minutes in. Hat tip to Scobleizer on FriendFeed (and friends)

I apparently got it mostly right without the benefit of hearing the post-kerfuffle conversation…

Leo Laporte — (Mr. Twit.tv) — has a long-standing rule that he does not accept hi-tech “freebies” (gifts) of things he covers as a tech broadcaster. He says he does this so there is no appearance of partiality on his part.

You can hear in the video, he clearly states that he requested a “Palm Pre” evaluation unit because he was unable to purchase one of his own at this time.

Arrington & Laporte Kerfuffle - Gillmor Gang (WARNING: explicit language) - June 6, 2009

Michael Arrington —  (Mr. TechCrunch) —  had this to say about access to pre-launch products: (emphasis mine)

“I ask Leo whether he bought the Pre or got it free and in advance of the launch, which I think is relevant because Palm is being very picky about who they give them out to. We were promised one but it wasn’t delivered. We suspect our critical coverage may be the reason, one other blogger I spoke to is in the same situation. Many of the pre-launch reviews are overtly positive, and we’re comparing those reviews where the journalist got a free Pre in advance of launch to the less cheerful ones written by people who had to pay for the device. Getting a high profile device in advance is a huge advantage, and is a conflict of interest that should be disclosed in our opinion. But the catch is this - as long as Palm sends out a letter with the device asking for it back in a week, it isn’t considered a financial conflict of interest. The fact that few people ever return them is rarely brought up.”

That is all well and good mostly. Note that Arrington is miffed that he is apparently on a blacklist or was overlooked with regard to the device in question. Arrington may be going too far in suggesting that Palm has invented the “one-week pre-launch evaluation unit loaner” to skirt the “financial conflict of interest” that “should be disclosed” (in their opinion.)

However, the last sentence there is quite interesting — “The fact that few people ever return them is rarely brought up.” The integrity of a journalist should be questioned if they don’t disclose gifts that affect their coverage, or don’t disclose that a “review unit” due to be returned becomes an “I forgot to return it” type of gift.

“It’s not a gift — it’s on loan permanently!”

That clearly doesn’t wash, and Arrington is right to point out that this is a hole in the entire “disclosure / review unit / gift / partiality” issue, and journalists and bloggers should take stock and perhaps someone should collect some data to find out how common the “permanent loan (not a gift)” problem is.

I will set aside an opportunity to cast aspersions on Arrington, by suggesting he’s been blacklisted because too many review units have gone missing. That is not my style.

I will say however that Arrington has the habit of brusquely going on the attack on occasion. His tone of voice and manner of speech are a dead giveaway — and what Laporte reacted to. I won’t give a litany of “Arrington attacks,” but I have noticed said manner when he goes on the offensive — when he “calls someone out,” or makes a pejorative comment (a.k.a. “flamebait.”)

That is why Laporte appeared to over-react as he did; also perhaps he’s unaccustomed to being asked to “disclose” such things. He’s been in broadcasting for a very long time, and has already addressed the issue of “freebies” and impartiality.

In my opinion, for what it’s worth, your mileage may vary, etc.

GillmorGang2009.06.06.part2