Talk:Wikimedia press releases/500,000 Wikipedia articles

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Talk:Wikimedia press releases
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Yann (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 18 August 2003 (Ambassador for French language). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Translators needed

Several days before this is released we need to freeze editing so that translations can be done in at least several languages.

Please add yourself, even if there is already someone for your language. There should be more than one translator per language!

Wouldn't be better to put translations here on meta? -- Tarquin 21:52 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to link to each of the translations at the top of this page. I kinda think it would be cool if those links went to each of the different wikis (most of which will have translated interfaces). --mav

Ambassadors needed

Please sign up to become a press contact.

Unfortunately Jimbo doesn't speak every language that Wikipedia is in. What is needed are people who are fluent in both English and another language to act as intermediaries between Jimbo and foreign language (to Jimbo) press services. That means that if you place your name below, your name and contact information will be placed before Jimbo's name under "For questions and interviews, please contact" for the version of the press release translated into your language (you will be listed as "X Wikipedia Press Contact"). It would be very unfortunate and embarrassing for all involved if Jimbo answered his phone and couldn't understand the reporter at the other end and they could not understand him. So please help by placing your name below:

Maybe we should add locations? Reporters maybe prefer to call people from their continent/region. And we can show/prove that Wikipedia represents every country in the world (hopefully soon ;-)

Talk

Perhaps can we ask for volunteer software developers for Wikipedia and sister projects when we send a press release to slashdot.

Youssefsan 21:22 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah - I think a mention of the Wikimedia software is important. But we need a name for it; How about MediaWiki? --Maveric149 21:26 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How about just Wikim? Or wikiM? or WiMe? As in WiFi. Keep it short man.
Suggestion - make the press release to slashdot, and which makes mention of the code and any call for developers, Wikimedia's third press release. That will give time to agree on these things and keep code in its proper place behind the user point of view that Wikimedia's first press release seems to take, and the contributor point of view that Wikimeida's second press release should probably take. Planning a series of these gives time to figu out what issues are about to become important, and get some agreement on how to handle them.

I have two other suggestions for the press release:

  • seven wikipedias have now reached the 10,000 mark. [French just hit 15,000]
  • interwikis language links allow to easily go from one language to another language.

Youssefsan

Let's also mention Simple English as it needs attention, unless we are going to contribute to the death of small languages, we need these as a base for translation. Let's also put links to this on pages, and upgrade it's software please.
I'm not sure if the bit on Simple English is really first-paragraph material? - fagan
Some arguments pro: 1. it demonstrates a commitment to not just extinct the 3000 small langauages in the world, but help to get them into the net age, so it's good PR. 2. it needs attention - mentioning it just got started excuses the fact that it has so few articles - not that it will ever need more than about a thousand 3. without that, it's not clear how we do translation and that this something other than 22 disconnected projects, one silo in each language
All now proposed as part of Wikimedia's second press release, giving time for this project to mature, and for a way of handling volunteers to do minor language versions to be streamlined.

This paragraph is very relevant and so on, but I moved it here because it makes the press release too long. Busy editors have short attention spans!

Bad idea. Because the busy editors have short attention spans, you must write the WHOLE article for them, and thus you must give them names and quotes and ways to use the project.
Another reason why it makes sense to stage multiple releases. For example this one is useful and will be added to Wikimedia's second press release:
From the beginning, Wales and Sanger believed that it was absolutely necessary that all participants be committed to what they call "neutral point of view": rather than taking stands on issues of controversy, participants work together to prepare descriptions of the controversy that are fair to all points of view. Sanger explains: "If we were to permit Wikipedia to take controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many different viewpoints to collaborate. Because of the neutrality policy, we have partisans working together on the same articles. It's quite remarkable."

-- Viajero 22:42 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Viajero - please deal with edit conflicts better (you deleted some of my changes). I'm going to remerge those edits in now so please don't create another edit conflict. --Maveric149 23:01 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Done. --mav
Yes I had a edit conflict; thought I re-entered all your changes. Sorry! Viajero 09:39 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's alright. :) --mav

It says 7 are at 10,000... but it only lists 6. -- Jake

Fixed. Thanks - the Vikings would have killed me if the press release failed to list them. --Maveric149

--

It would be great to include some of the non-English prominent media that covered Wikipedia, to illustrate the attention it is getting elsewhere. Tomos 09:31 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Here's some of the things I want to do with this release:

  • Take some of the history out (only of peripheral interest to reporters), we already refer to Wikipedia's entry about itself
  • Allude to attempts to create a "1.0" version of Wikipedia as Jimbo recently suggested, other goals
  • Not quite as many statistics -- these can be added as an appendix if necessary. That might make a lot of sense anyway, considering common misconceptions about Wikipedia (see w:Wikipedia:Criticisms for a rebuttal I wrote yesterday)
  • Add some actual content examples from the different projects
  • Add more quotes from Wikipedians
  • Describe Wikipedia software development in one paragraph

Let me know if there are objections to any of these. —Eloquence


History is character. Don't omit it.
Should there be mention of other projects using the Wikipedia software, e.g. en:Disinfopedia, en:Consumerium, and its general utility for other uses?
That is why there is a link to the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. The focus of a press release to to inform the world about something that is new - like having 300,000 articles. Everything else is background and of secondary importance. --mav

Should we wait until we have the new logo and identity before releasing this? That way new users will be able to see WP in its best clothes... --Neolux 12:49 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Kwekubo
a clearer default skin would be good too! See Montparnasse skin -- Tarquin 16:02 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts. Yellow is kind of a noxious colour, light blue may be better.
See the light yellow on en.wiki. --mav

How about describing some of the mechanisms that help mantain the quality of the pages, protect against abuse, and resolve conflicts, such as the talk pages, page history, and watch lists? (thus with the latter, the option (and ease!) of creating a personal acount) I find myself explaining these things everytime I tell someone about wikipedia, and I always get a very positive reaction from this.

meta-wiki and it's relation to wiki might also be an interesting topic. -- Kevin Baas

This is a press release - if you put everything in then it won't be read. There is plenty of info in the linked pages. Keep the detail off of the press release - that is not what they are for. --mav
I'd say that these features are pretty intrinsic to the nature of wikipedia, esp. in that these mechanisms are primordially responsible for the characteristic oganization and behavior of wikipedia. Put otherwise, wikipedia is simply the composite manifestation of such "information channels". If we are to define what wikipedia is, and how it differs from other entities, i think the clearest and most effective way of doing this is to describe the forces which make wikipedia what it is. I also think that it is very important in a press release to define the subject. --Kevin Baas
A press release is about what is new, not about what is. All the info you talk about is in the linked pages at the bottom. If people are interested then they will read it. Otherwise it is background inforamtion. --mav
Aight, I tried. ;-) In general, I was interested in making it more persuasive for people who are more critically-minded. -kev

History of Wikipedia cites an Alternet article where Wales said there were 600 regular and 7000 irregular contributors. How many are there now? This should be mentioned.

Also, forget "300,000 articles", the right milestone to release this on is when Wikipedia enters the "top 1000 websites" as registered by alexa.com - that's what the media responds to: popularity. Right now it is apparently 1057th.

It is probably the first wholly-tribally-authored (no institutions) web site to do so.

We are finding out that Alexa's numbers might be bogus (read the tech list archive). --mav
OK, so let's make no such claims until Wikimedia's second press release.

Someone care to contact the en:Guiness Book of World Records to make the claim that this is the world's largest collectively authored work? If it is, more publicity. If it isn't, then, who is, so we can catch up and beat them?

Please, let's keep the hype to a dull roar? --mav
Wikimedia's fourth press release? Again, something that should be planned as part of a series, so that editors see about one release every month or so.

Wikimedia vs the whole web

Here is another stastic but I think not so useful. Google has 3,083,324,652 pages 3,083,324,652/300,000 = ± 10 000. So Wikimedia is about 1/10,000 of the web. Perhaps can we add some statistics in an attachment. -- Youssefsan 20:28 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That seems very useful to me. Being 0.001% of the whole web is nothing to sneeze at. But more so, given the article editing process, we can make the claim to be the most reliably truthful and neutral of those. If of course we can over come our systemic bias problems. - t2
More impressive: There are 1,590,000 pages in Google's database that contain the word "Wikipedia". Only 209,000 are outside the wikipedia.org servers, though. Still, the high number of Wikipedia pages indexed by Google indicates that any regular Internet user will come across a Wikipedia page sooner or later during searches, even if it's just a talk or meta page.—Eloquence 22:57 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Imagine a poll to find out what percentage of net users have actually done so. Also, what percentage of google searches return the Wikipedia page as their first option, or the most obviously useful on the first page?

The Press Release itself...

Wouldn't it be a good idea to note at the bottom of the press release something like this?

"This press release itself was written within a WikiWikiWeb. Before its release it was edited {#} times by {#} different volunteer authors, and translated into {#} languages by {#} volunteers."
- fagan
That's a great idea IMHO. -- Gutza 00:29 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some specific claims are made regarding the non-profit. Shouldn't we do some work on the charter and have it finalized before we start making claims about it? user:mirwin

Yes.
Also, the press release could and should say that we are recruiting a board. Why not say directly that we want the ideal Wikipedia board - maybe the press release will attract the attention of those prominent folk.
We're not recruiting a board of outsiders. It will probably consist mostly of sysops and prominant editors. To tell you the truth, I don't really want those non-wikipedians running wikipedia. w:User:LittleDan
It doesn't matter what you want. Nor is your preference for a cabal a policy decision. Certifying the current clique or cabal as the board has advantages, sure, things will go smoothly for sysops. But nothing prevents a more representative and open organization, working more democratically, from simply putting up the same software under a new URL and bypassing wikipedia.org with the same GNU FDL content. That would be a regime change, for sure. Hell, Brittanica could do it. Your preferences must be balanced against the legal requirements of a non-profit, and the practical reality that Wikipedia.org cannot and does not claim exclusive control over the content. And that's as it should be. So either you open up on your own terms, or it's done for you. --142.177
Funny you start off by saying "It doesn't matter what you want" and then start to talk about making Wikimedia more representative by allowing people outside of Wikimedia represent Wikimedians. How is rule by outsiders representative of Wikimedia contributors? And nobody is going to redirect our url to another site - that is paranoid nonsense. --Maveric149
Funny how after all this time you don't understand the GNU FDL nor its implications. It doesn't matter what *anyone* here wants. What matters is what the GNU FDL says. And what it says is that anyone can bypass (not "redirect") wikipedia.org and make the same content visible via another user interface. Just as IBM sells Linux. There is clearly a need for outsiders representative of Wikipedia users (not "Wikimedia contributors" - an encyclopedia isn't run for the benefit only of its creators). So, I repeat, "either you open up on your own terms, or it's done for you." It's easy enough to see how, and why neither of us can decide not to. Repeating "Your preferences must be balanced against the legal requirements of a non-profit, and the practical reality that Wikipedia.org cannot and does not claim exclusive control over the content." -142.177

From mX Melbourne, Australia Wed August 6, 2003 p.21: Wiki'd Web Are you well versed in Russian history? Or familiar with the finer points of roller hockey? An expert on any topic can find a home in www.wikipedia.org, a know-it-all website created by thousands of plugged in volunteers. It's a free encyclopedia logging more than 140,000 articles sent in by people from all over the world.

I thought this snippet from the local paper here may be of interest. My apologies if this isn't the right place for it. I'll try to get it scanned to add to the media coverage archive (if there is one). Neolux 12:46 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Neolux, this sounds great! You can add it to the page: en:Wikipedia:Press_coverage Fantasy 16:29 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Better get WikimediaFoundation.org/fundraising with text on it before this is released, or rich benefactor may come and leave, discouraged.

Followup

This release focuses on the casual end user's point of view. Wikimedia's second press release could focus on the contributor and social view of the project, and call more specifically for the kind of contributors we want - it generally takes more than one press release to attract an editor's attention.

Waiting a while gives us time to validate that Wikipedia is in the top 1000 sites, something so hard to verify that it gives slack in the timing, and also to ensure that some critical projects like Simple English and a call for nominations to the ideal Wikipedia board get done.


I think we need this press release to push us up to 1000 w:User:LittleDan

Public domain and press releases

Is it standard practice to make press releases public domain? If so, great - brand new source of useful info for Wikipedia! If not, why should Wikipedia be different? 81.77.241.53

It would be impossible to have the press follow the GNU FDL, which is what it otherwise would have been in.w:User:LittleDan


Making the press release more like a press release

Having both read and written press releases, I offer these observations.

  • A press release should tell only one story. Separate stories should have their own press release, usually on a different day. If the story is the 300,000 article benchmark, stick to that and leave out the Wikimedia foundation.
  • A press release does not solicit donations.
  • Put the background information (boilerplate) in no more than two paragraphs at the end. Keep it the same across all press releases.
  • One or two quotes attributed to someone associated with the project (e.g. Jimmy Wales) should appear in the article. e.g. "The rapid growth in both the quantity and quality of the articles shows the power of the Wiki concept." or "Meeting the 300,000 article milestone demonstrates that the open source concept is not limited to software development". It is customary for the writers of the press release to craft the quote and get concurrence from the attributed individual prior to publication.
  • It is best to include a quote attributed to a prominent person outside the project. Someone from a prominent library would be a good choice, as would be a college or university professor.
  • Headings such as "additional information" are not used.
  • Follow the standard format and nomenclature. "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE", a single contact person listed simply as "Contact: R.P. Huges", and # # # at the end. Look at some other press releases to get the idea.

Best regards - Kat 20:41 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but we don't want to saturate the news services with 5 different press releases in the same week. One relatively short one will do just fine (although we may have to take out the Wikimedia reference until the Foundation and its website are fully set-up). I'll take a look at incorporating your other suggestions later. --mav
Actually, I think you may be right about having a separate press release about the Foundation. --mav
I tried on the mailing list, but I was out voted. One press release it is. --mav

GPL vs. GFDL

"Thanks to the GNU General Public license, one thing is certain: The content will remain free."

I think this is just wrong, so I will change it immediately.
--Zenogantner 17:02, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

admitting problems

I hope you don't mind, I was merely following the rule set out in the press release strategy. To quote,

Make sure to hit yourself in the stomach with at least one thing you don't want to admit or accept, but which is "out there" as general impression or known problem. Never let anyone else point out your problems before you do.

Hi, (insert name here), should this be the last line? If someone reads the whole pressrelease, the last thing that stays in mind is the problems (now solved). I would prefer to end the pressrelease with a positive statement. Fantasy 21:29, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The lag problem most certainly isn't solved yet! And it's true there are a lot of stubs!

Per-language contacts? (Ambassadors?)

Is it ok if each language adds its own additional contact persons? They may not represent Wikimedia, but the release is not only about Wikimedia, but also about the different Wikipedias, and the press might be interested to talk to native speakers ...

--Zenogantner 21:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Who will be the ambassador for Germany? I volontere.
No, seriously: good Idea! ;-) Fantasy 21:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Very good idea - we should have a call for ambassadors just as we had a call for translators. I'll email Wikipedia-L and IntlWiki-L after work. --Maveric149

OK, lets start the list of Ambassadors:

I think, there can be more then one per country, one should be the main contact, the others can help out.

See above, . --Maveric149 05:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest

The paragraph beginning "To be perfectly honest," doesn't sound right as it is not written in the third-person like the rest of it. Also seems a bit too negative IMO. Angela 23:43, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anglo- and America-centric

The comment about the Wikipedia being Anglo- and America-centric wasn't linguistically neutral, so I modified it. Kwekubo

misleading stats

I removed the paragraph talking about our "misleading stats" since, last time I checked, dead tree encyclopedias have a similar proportion of stubs as we do and in fact about 80% of the articles on en.wiki at least are over 500 bytes. We need to keep this press release from getting too big (although a sentence stating that "like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia has many short articles, but unlike other encyclopedias Wikipedia has disproportionate coverage in areas X, Y and Z". --Maveric149


Dear 128.175.112.224 (please insert name here), could you please write here your discussion. I moved your contribution here. Fantasy 21:48, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


These statistics are, however, slightly misleading - a good proportion of the articles are "stubs", i.e. very short articles which are little more than a brief definition, inviting further contribution. Some also find the coverage of each Wikipedia language version to be rather skewed towards the pop culture of each language group. However, with infinite space, there is no real reason to discourage such entries, as this is the beauty of Wikipedia - there are no limits to what topics may be covered in the articles, and popular or otherwise each theme is inherently given the same indefinite space and capacity to grow. A list of "brilliant prose" is maintained for those who wish to read only the most scholarly and serious articles.
This statistic might seem discouraging to you, the curious reader and potential Wikipedian, but look at it this way. This is not really a drawback but a call for you to participate! With YOUR help, we can improve and cure our problems! If you see a stub, correct it! Follow the Wikipedian ethic and help up build up Wikipedia until we can proudly admit, the bias is gone and the stubs are fixed! Or if you prefer to be a passive participant, come back later and most likely, you would see enormous improvements! Besides, just look at ordinary encyclopedias like Britannica; they are packed full of stubs too! In fact, about 80% of the articles on en.wiki at least are over 500 bytes.
  • I, Kwekubo, edited the first of these paragraphs. I think it is important that, when giving negative information, we counteract it with some good. And it isn't even a lie - most encyclopedias would never have articles about Evanescence, Copyleft or Chip 'n Dale. I think it is very important to get across the point that Wikipedia, and indeed all the Wikimedia, are without those sorts of limits, and therein lies great attraction and beauty. Anyone willing to reintegrate that idea? As for the second paragraph... the writer seems to be writing for an article, not a press release. -- Kwekubo


300K milestone

Is someone keeping tabs of how close we are to the 300K milestone for all languages? --Anon

Just checking the rate of change. At the current rate we should hit 300,000 sometime near the end of this month or early next. But no harm will be done if we have to wait upto 310,000 in order to get everything ready. --Maveric149 10:47, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mention on NPOV policy

Please note that NPOV, as stated by Wikipedia, is basically what journalism is also about: a journalist will never say "Politician X is corrupt and has bad breath", he'll rather say something along the lines of "We have information that..." or "Our sources indicate..." or even "Politician Y said that...". Maybe inserting this idea (the similarity with journalism or something) in the NPOV explanations wouldn't be a bad idea. -- Gutza 10:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You obviously don't read much material written by journalists (at least in the US); it is oftentimes very POV and not at all comparable to our standards of neutrality. TV is much worse (some reports by FoxNEWS during the Iraq War were borderline US propaganda). --Maveric149 10:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the understanding of what I said. I completely agree journalism is inherently tainted with POV (otherwise where would the money come from?), what I was referring to was the way things are presented. While it is absolutely true that journalists are POV by omission and selection of printed materials, they can't be truly POV in a personal manner (see my example above) because otherwise they'd risk a lot more legal trouble than they have ordinarily (which AFAIK is not little in general). The resulting idea is that while journalists can't afford to be POV in a personal manner but can afford to be POV by omission and selection (because you and I can't edit a journal), Wikipedia can be neither because you and I can edit the data. And now you can see why I didn't edit the press release myself--I needed two paragraphs to express the idea properly. :) -- Gutza 11:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

email-sender

What will be the "sender" of the press-email? Is there a "pressrelease@wikimedia.org" or something like this? How will this work? Fantasy 19:30, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The way it worked last time is that we simply made the press release final and told everybody to send it to whatever news service they saw fit. We may want to coordinate things so that some news services aren't spamed while others don't get any notice. Wikimedia's press release planning might be a good place to work out just what news services we want to hit. We can also draft a form letter to aid in the process. Please, set up such a page if you think it is important. --Maveric149 19:47, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Maybe the effect of "spamming" certain news-services is also a positive effect... If they see, a lot of people are taking interrest in this, they will maybe put it on their news... If e.g. CNN just gets one press-release from "someone", will they bother to read it? (I don't know how the system works...) Fantasy 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_press_releases/500,000_Wikipedia_articles&oldid=11088"