Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Wikipedia in Blogland _ In praise of Wikimedia Strategy

Posted by: thekohser

This is a particularly predictable publication.

Chris Grams is a partner at New Kind, a strategic communications, design, and innovation firm. Previously, Chris spent 10 years at Red Hat, where he played a "key role" in building the Red Hat brand and "culture". (See where this is headed?) Mr. Grams also blogs about brand, "community", and culture at Dark Matter Matters.

If you need to reach Chris Grams, he asks that you contact him via Twitter. wacko.gif

Also, if you post a comment that is the least bit critical of the Wikimedia Strategy http://strategy.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=250&type=block&user=Philippe+%28WMF%29&month=&year=, Chris Grams will delete it for you.

Even though his http://opensource.com/business/10/3/wikimedia-foundation-doing-strategic-planning-open-source-way praises the "strategic planning process in all of its transparent, open glory".

hmmm.gif

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture Kool-Aid drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?

Posted by: John Limey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 2:58pm) *

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture Kool-Aid drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?


In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(John Limey @ Sun 14th March 2010, 1:22pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th March 2010, 2:58pm) *

Do you think there's some sort of school or clinic where these free culture {{Unjustly Defamed Brand Name of Disputed Identity Powdered Instant Softdrink (DIPIS) Redacted}} drinkers go to get the skepticism scooped right out of their heads, only to be replaced with a healthy clump of hypocrisy?


In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.


Interesting analysis. I think this is related to one of the things I was trying to say on my TAG Thread.

Jon Image

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(John Limey @ Sun 14th March 2010, 12:22pm) *
In my experience, these types are actually some of the most skeptical people around, except when it comes to their own pet causes (Wikipedia, Linux, etc.). Thus the same people who are Wikipedia's biggest fan are often the ones who regard everything published by the mainstream media with deep suspicion. I think the skepticism is not removed, but rather transferred from the objects of most people's skepticism (Wikipedia, etc.) to the things of which most people are much less skeptical. The overall amount of skepticism, I think, remains roughly constant.
This is consistent with my experience with ideological editors on Wikipedia. Within their area of ideological commitment, they are absolutely convinced of the rectitude of their own positions and brook no deviation of viewpoint whatsoever, while outside of it they tend to exhibit, if anything, a heightened degree of skepticism, often colored with cynicism as well. Thinking of a few of the open-source ideologues I know (outside of Wikipedia) it certainly applies to them as well, so it would surprise me little to see that this thesis holds for Wikipedia zealots as well.

Perhaps the cynicism and skepticism of mainstream beliefs is a reaction to apparent unthinking belief in these things by people who are clearly wrong. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, after all.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Whoops, I posted about a previous opensource.com editorial http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28861.

Also, I have sent a polite (though rather anti-Wiki) email to Chris Grams and
Jeff Mackanic. Let us see what they have to say after reading commentary that
doesn't look like a WMF press release.

Posted by: thekohser

Jeff Mackanic says this about my deleted comment:

QUOTE
Here is some text from the post that was deleted:

Maybe like a glory hole. You see, the head guy of that Strategy circle-jerk
simply removes anything and anyone that doesn't already "fit" in the
predetermined hole that the Wikimedia Foundation's digging itself.


The reason I deleted the post is the terms 'circle-jerk' and 'glory hole'.
The content is fine. It was just that the words 'circle-jerk' and 'glory hole' might be perceived as lewd or profane.

Your other comments are great and add to the value of the site - thank you