User:Ta bu shi da yu/Charles Arthur

The following is an email conversation I had with Charles Arthur, the editor of Technology at The Guardian, after Andrew Orlowski wrote the opinion piece "A thirst for knowledge". It starts off somewhat incoherently (must remember not to email newspaper editors when I'm tired...) but I pick up some steam the next day.

---

From: Chris Sherlock Sent: Thu 13/04/2006 2:10 PM To: tech@guardian.co.uk Subject: "A thirst for knowledge" To the editors,

What on earth is the Guardian coming to? You are printing editorials from Andrew Orlowski? You are aware that Andrew Orlowski was accused of fabricating an email from Microsoft to boost one of his articles on The Register?

"But for participants, the appeal fades, notes Skip. Some of Wikipedia's most valued contributors have left in the past year, with two waves of departures in recent months, he says. Former administrators speak of burnout, brought on by bureaucratic warfare. Now Wikipedia faces a fork. If it tightens its open approach, it risks losing its most active participants, for whom Wikipedia is a utopian cause."

Could you also verify how many valuable editors have left? I'm a frequent contributor and there has not been a significant drain on the site that we are aware of. In fact, if the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates is any measure, we are getting more valuable contributors all the time!

I have to say, I'm most surprised that you published this article on The Guardian.

Respectfully, Chris Sherlock

---

From: Charles Arthur Sent: Thu 13/04/2006 8:02 PM To: Chris Sherlock Subject: Re: "A thirst for knowledge" Hi..

you wrote.. >> What on earth is the Guardian coming to? You are printing editorials from Andrew Orlowski? You are aware that Andrew Orlowski was accused of fabricating an email from Microsoft to boost one of his articles on The Register? >>

That's incorrect. You might like to go back and read over precisely who said what about that row. You'll be aware too that "accused" doesn't mean "guilty". This isn't an "editorial"; it's a feature in which he takes a proposition to various parties and tests it with them.

>> Could you also verify how many valuable editors have left? I'm a frequent contributor and there has not been a significant drain on the site that we are aware of. In fact, if the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates is any measure, we are getting more valuable contributors all the time! >>

The "missing wikipedians" page seems to show people going. Are the articles getting better? Are the Bill Gates or Jane Fonda articles "improving"? I'm asking, not being rhetorical.

>> I have to say, I'm most surprised that you published this article on The Guardian. >>

Because it conflicts with your worldview? That's sort of what the article's about, though.

best Charles Arthur, editor, Technology

---

From: Charles Arthur Sent: Thu 13/04/2006 8:03 PM To: Chris Sherlock Subject: Re: "A thirst for knowledge" - extra

Hi Chris..

one other thing: we'd like to use part of your letter but would need a post town. Can you oblige?

best Charles

---

From: Chris Sherlock Sent: Mon 17/04/2006 1:46 AM To: Charles Arthur Subject: RE: "A thirst for knowledge" - extra If it's all the same with you, I'd rather not have it published. I was more expressing my disgust that you would use Andrew Orlowski as a credible writer. He is not.

Chris

---

From: Charles Arthur Sent: Mon 17/04/2006 6:51 AM To: Chris Sherlock Subject: RE: "A thirst for knowledge" - extra

Hi Chris..

you wrote.. >> If it's all the same with you, I'd rather not have it published. I was more expressing my disgust that you would use Andrew Orlowski as a credible writer. He is not. >>

We won't publish your letter if you don't want. I think you should re-read the piece ignoring the byline, or pretending there's a different one there. I think it stands up to scrutiny. It's factual; it quotes people who have informed opinions on the topic. I don't publish pieces I'm not confident in. That was not the first draft; the editing process quite frequently requires revision and querying. I also saw a fair bit of what was cut for reasons of length.

You may dislike Andrew Orlowski's work, but facts are just that - facts.

best Charles

---

From: Chris Sherlock Sent: Mon 17/04/2006 2:06 AM To: Charles Arthur Subject: RE: "A thirst for knowledge" OK, I've had another look around for further info on Orlowski and that email. Do you know something I don't? Orlowski says that he received an email from Robert Scoble, which Scoble denies. Can you confirm that Orlowski received that email? Hardly looks good for Orlowski though, now does it?

Personally, I think Orlowski is a nasty piece of work (I submit the "wikifiddlers" comments to back this up). Again I reiterate that I'm suprised that you published him.

Chris

---

From: Charles Arthur Sent: Mon 17/04/2006 7:05 AM To: Chris Sherlock Subject: RE: "A thirst for knowledge"

Hi Chris..

lots of these crossing each other. 1) "wikifidddlers". He doesn't use that word/phrase in the article. I would have struck it out anyway. (It wasn't in any draft.) The article - I'll repeat - quotes people; cites facts. Ask questions and then seeks the answers.

2) Scoble email. Jury still seems to be out. And to be honest it's irrelevant to the Guardian's piece. If you've got any *factual* complaints about the piece *we* published, we do have a Readers' Editor who makes it his task to correct errors. You can contact him on reader@guardian.co.uk.

best Charles Arthur, editor, Technology

---

From: Chris Sherlock Sent: Mon 17/04/2006 12:29 PM To: Charles Arthur Subject: RE: "A thirst for knowledge" I'll keep the reply to one email.

Before I continue, I should note that I am an administrator on the site, though I am writing from a personal capacity which is why I didn't identify myself as such. I should also note that Orlowski irritates me no end as I try react to constructive criticism - probably the best site for that is http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm by a gentleman by the name of Matthew White. Would you be able to point out constructive criticism given in the editorial - or in fact given at any time by Orlowski (he of the "wikipediaphile" turn of phrase)? By constructive I don't mean "dismantle Wikipedia and let's all go home". In fact, I love constructive criticism. I monitor Matthew White's blog frequently and have done several things (both long term and short term) to resolve issues on the site.

Now, what about this business of a massive exit of valuable editors, leaving Wikipedia with a massive problem? Like I stated, the missing Wikipedians page doesn't really indicate this for several reasons. Therefore I don't believe that this is a factual comment in Orlowski's article.

As you would like some specific commentary, let's look at several statements:

"This gradual deterioration afflicts any utopian online space, and Skip ruefully notes even the best Wikipedia work - its catalogue of featured articles of the week - degenerates once out of the spotlight."

Hardly. The featured articles do change, but they have largely not deteriorated. I have written several: Windows 2000, Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, Btrieve, Cyclone Tracy. None of these have deteriorated. Those that *appear* to deteriorate (and I do emphasise "appear") are listed on featured article removal candidates - however most times they are removed not because they deteriorated over time but because Wikipedia's quality standards have improved.

Next I'd like to comment on the follow statement:

"Britannica's president Jorge Cauz identifies a homogeneity online he finds unsettling. "Internet discourse has the ability to negate the diversity of voices, and no one can differentiate between truth and myth," he says."

"Negate the diversity of voices"? "No one can differetiate between truth and myth"? Why do they believe this? Of *course* people can differentiate. Nobody ever got fantastic marks in a University essay for citing an encyclopedia! Asyou questioned by world view, perhaps the worldview of Jorge Cauz should also be question. New technologies are often disruptive, and as Orlowski points out Britannica is struggling.

"But for participants, the appeal fades, notes Skip. Some of Wikipedia's most valued contributors have left in the past year, with two waves of departures in recent months, he says. Former administrators speak of burnout, brought on by bureaucratic warfare. Now Wikipedia faces a fork. If it tightens its open approach, it risks losing its most active participants, for whom Wikipedia is a utopian cause."

A few points here:

a. We have already forked before, and Wikipedia is still strong. The site that forked was Wikinfo. b. Who are these contributors who have left? Which waves is Orlowski talking about? c. "If it tightens its open approach". We have tightened a few things, the most notable is to prevent anonymous editors from creating new article. Another is to tag all articles of living people and keep a careful eye on them. We've also got a specific policy of allowing "Office Actions", which allow any Wikimedia board member to remove information and lock a page until problems are resolved on the site. None of these have led to a large number of active participants leaving.

The way that Orlowski speaks, it sounds as if he's in the know about the internal mechanisms and politics of Wikipedia. Those who do know what goes on at the site are mostly shaking their heads.

Next we get the following:

"And while technology enthusiasts celebrate the destruction of old industries, Gorman warns technology has failed to create economic conditions to take their place. Quality information costs money to edit but the best online collections of data - in what is sometimes called the "deep web" - are byproducts of successful print businesses. Lose these, he suggests, and we're left with the banality of Google and Wikipedia. Davies is more optimistic. People will return to traditional publishers as they see the consequences of the wiki approach, he thinks, and there will be an audience for both."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it very much seems to me that a few statements are being asserted:

1. Quality information costs money to edit 2. All quality online information is a by-product of print resources 3. We should therefore lament the fact that we have free information and do everything in our power to stop it.

Statement one is not necessarily correct. I have added quality information on several topics on Wikipedia. Just the other day I had someone compliment me on my MDAC article. It cost me nothing to write.

Statement two is absurd. If that was the case, then Microsoft Development Network would never have been so succesful.

Statement three sounds like sour grapes to me. As I have stated above, new technology is often disruptive, and IMHO old industries who were the gateway to all knowledge aren't very happy about it. Britannica has been struggling for many years now. In fact, I remember hearing it was struggling shortly after Microsoft released Encarta on CD for a fraction of the cost. I'm glad that Orlowski wrote about Davies though: Wikipedia has never actually said that it should be the last point of research - this is actually actively discouraged. We have a policy of no original research and that all material must be taken from reliable sources. The featured articles do this, and there are many more that are not featured that do this also.

One last point: before you asked if the Bill Gates or Jane Fonda articles are any better. You could read them, but in my opinion they are considerably better. On the Gates article all the cruft has been removed and a very good synopsis of his life has been put together. The Fonda article is a lot better, probably could still do with some work though. Neither of these articles are featured. Orlowski, when he wrote "Wikipedia's co-founder and site owner Jimmy Wales agreed, calling the examples Carr cited "horrific crap"...these articles were mature, Carr pointed out, and had been edited hundreds of times." fails to note that articles are only mature if they are featured.

I hope this is, at the very least, food for thought. I wasn't communicating too well last night as I was incredibly tired and perhaps a little bit sick, so apologies if my responses weren't terribly lucid.

Regards, Chris