Why Is Wikipedia A Taboo Subject?
May 7, 2008 Mark O'Neill 247 views
photo credit: unimatrixZxero
I am still a little taken aback at a post that I wrote a few days back and which appeared today on NowSourcing about Wikipedia. It was about German Wikipedia’s decision to publish some of the posts into a book and sell it for $32 a pop.
I wrote the post and said basically that I didn’t think that it was ethical of Wikipedia to do this. OK well I went a lot further than that. I might have said that Wikipedia was “shafting the writers” but at the end of the day I still feel I was making a valid point. As a professional writer, I have come across many people, both online and offline, who try on a daily basis to scam writers into working for free. So you could say the Wikipedia scheme hit a nerve.
But not compared to the nerve my article hit.
As soon as the article came out, the comments on the blog post started. No biggie there. I answered them and moved on. But one guy really got into his stride and the personal attacks started. Again, no biggie. I have a thick skin. I’ve been verbally attacked before. It just rolls off me now.
Brian Wallace, webmaster and owner of NowSourcing, put a link to the blog post on Twitter and it got picked up by ReadWriteWeb. This led to more traffic - and more attention.
Then the abusive emails started. Very abusive. Now I’ve had some very abusive emails in my time but some of these made me stop and pause for a moment. They basically implied that I should stop writing and have sexual relations with my mother instead.
Then the Skype phone calls started. I got a Skype phone call from a whacko who told me that the sh*t that came out his dog’s ass has more intelligence than me. I mean, what do you say to that?! Thank you? The calls kept coming in to the point that I had to put Skype on “Do Not Disturb” so they all instantly went to voicemail.
Speaking today to other writers who have criticised Wikipedia in the past, it seems that this is nothing new. It seems that as soon as you criticise Wikipedia in any way, the big guns get rolled out and you get trampled on. But if these flat-footed idiots had any sense, they would realise that the best way to get rid of me, and critics like me, would be to SHUT UP and wait for us to go away by ourselves. But to come stomping in, screaming at me, threatening me, giving me verbal abuse….that makes me wonder the following :
Why is Wikipedia a taboo subject? Why is it impossible for us to have a civilised constructive discussion like mature adults without resorting to personal vicious attacks?
Thanks to their unbelievable crassness, I am now determined to stick around and do some sniffing around to see what else I can find. Thanks guys for the tip.
(2 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Posted in wikipedia
May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Speaking as someone who had a strong, visceral reaction to your post, I think I can explain why. (I didn’t send any flames, by the way.)
Basically, it felt like you were speaking for me and all other Wikipedia editors, and putting words into our mouths. Your post implied that I should be offended by the publication of my words without royalties. For 99% of regular editors on Wikipedia, I don’t think this is the case. I (and most others) are well-aware of the GNU FDL; indeed, in order to make contributions beyond a few lines to WP, you have to be slightly familiar with the license so that you can understand what content you may and may not use.
In your original post you state:
This is what I mean by “putting words into my mouth.” I certainly would not have demanded a contract or a guarantee of financial compensation. I don’t believe most others would have either (this assertion is based on my routine interactions and discussions with other editors). In any case, the contributions were under the GFDL, which means that the Wikimedia Foundation has no control whatsoever over the content after it is published. Anyone is free to copy it (as long as they license it under the GFDL as well). Even if I had wanted a contract, there is no way the WMF could have given me one, because they simply can’t make any guarantees over how the content would be used. I was aware of this at the time I contributed, as is
The idea that I should desire a “royalty” for my contributions makes a mockery of the purpose behind them. My goal, when I edit WP, is to improve the existing article, or create a useful new article. It is not to make money (and if I wanted to make money, I would be spending my time elsewhere, obviously). Someone’s decision to publish the text of Wikipedia articles in book form does not in any way reduce someone’s ability to read my content, as they will always be available online as well. Furthermore, the book text is licensed under the same GFDL, so it’s entirely in the spirit of Wikipedia.
I think other people are reacting for similar reasons. Once again, it’s not that Wikipedia is a taboo subject; it’s just that your post seemed to be putting words into my mouth, and suggesting that no one in his/her right mind would ever contribute content under a free license. Well, I’m in my right mind, and I’ve contributed content under a free license to Wikipedia and other projects, and I will continue to do so in the future, because I like free licenses. You seemed to be suggesting I shouldn’t like them in your original post, and it was this presumption that provoked me to write this post, and probably what provoked less sober individuals to send you hate mail and harass you.
Well, there’s one man’s answer to your question, anyway
May 7th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The response you received has nothing to do with Wikipedia, per se. It was mostly a reaction to your naiveté. It was as if though you had asked “oh my gosh, did y’all know about George Bush? I never would have voted for him if I had known!” When you loudly proclaim your ignorance of a well-known issue (by declaring your shock when you find out), you must learn to expect some reaction. You still don’t understand what’s going on, because you claim, in this very post, that “It was about German Wikipedia’s decision to publish some of the posts into a book”. No, it was Bertelsmann’s decision to publish the book, not German Wikipedia’s. You really shouldn’t post about things you clearly do not understand, especially with such a definitive tone.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Hi there Mark
I read you initial posting that got such a volatile response and made a lengthy reply at the other website
So I will keep it briefer here
I am disgusted that you recieved abusive e-mails and skype calls
Thats just overboard mate and I for one as a blogger and IT professional find that rather disturbing
However you were rather harsh coming out of the start gate yourself, and the situation was born of your ignorance.
I may say, if you accuse an organisation as widely loved as Wiki (any wiki) then your setting yourself up for a fall
Professional writer or not, you showed poor judgement in both your choice of phrases and you have been spanked for it
I still feel for you though as the abuse is not warranted and makes bloggers like myself look like hicks with bad tempers
In closing, may I suggest you do a little reasearch before the next time you write a blog in outrae at the situation and take a few days to compose your thougyts
You are obviously very intellegent, but be aware, in the cyber zone you really need 2 things
1: a very thick skin
2: FACTS
Have a great evening
Kakete Ano
May 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I dislike volatile responses and factual errors
Just to clarify again:
This is not a decision by ‘German Wikipedia’ and it’s not a question of Wikipedia actingly ethical. You can of course discuss if the GFDL license is ethical…
We do a lot of things to making aware to the contributors under which terms their input is handled. On every single page and above any “Save” button you will find links to the GFDL - I doubt you will find many webpages out there doing the same thing to clarify their license.
While the text is always published under the GFDL license, there are some more licenses used inside Wikipedia (for media data). They all must fullfill the following three (prominently stated) key points:
# Republication and distribution must be allowed
# Publication of derivative work must be allowed
# Commercial use of the work must be allowed
The whole idea of Wikipedia is to create free content for everyone to reuse. You can read more about true free licenses here: http://freedomdefined.org
In the past several publishers took content from the Wikipedia and created CD-Roms, DVDs, Books, Leaflets, and more. And this is good and supports our mission.
Ok, to come to an end: I really hate that you’re harassed by some weird people. Please note that most likely they are no active Wikipedians.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Brent : Thanks for your supportive comments. However I want to clarify a few things.
One, I DO have a thick skin. After 20 years of writing for newspapers and websites, I have been called a lot worse than what Mr Brutsch and his buddies threw at me. So trust me, the reaction to my blog post momentarily took me aback, but only for a moment. Then I went on, business as usual. I certainly didn’t let Mr Brutsch and company ruin my day.
Secondly, you might think I was harsh but in actual fact I wasn’t. Yes, I said that Wikipedia was shafting the writers but does that mean I am standing in the boxing ring with the gloves on ready to batter someone? I wrote that single line to draw people’s attention to the article and boy, it looks like I sure as hell got people’s attention.
Third, regardless of the license, I still feel that what Wikipedia is doing is wrong. Now the Wikipedia fan boys can throw punches at me, make hate calls, send abusive emails at me as much as they want but I am entitled to my opinions. Does that make me naive? Well, if you want to call it that, then fine, go ahead. You’re entitled to your opinions as much as I am entitled to mine. That’s democracy for you.
And last of all, I spent a week writing that post and rewriting it. I didn’t write on the back of a beer-mat in a bar in 5 minutes. So trust me, a lot of thought went into it.
As I said to Mr Brutsch, I don’t want people to agree with me. I don’t want “yes” men. If everyone agreed, the world would be damn boring. So bring on the dissent, bring on the criticism. I welcome it. But I DO draw the line at personal attacks and verbal abuse.
And now I am ending this discussion. I am drawing a line under this and moving onto other subjects. Too much time has been spent on this already. I just wanted to put a reply to your comment on the record.