I didn’t necessarily expect to feel vivid, spontaneous emotions about the 9/11 attacks on this 10th anniversary. I suspected that too much time had passed, that 10 more years in journalism had only given me that much more cynical, objective distance.
But of all things it was a simpleWikipedia timeline of 9/11 that got to me. It turned out to be rather effective at dredging up one of the scariest feelings from that horrible day a decade ago: the enormous, unprecedented scale of the attacks combined with too little information from one minute to the next to be able to guess how much bigger the disaster might get.
I literally felt my heart thud-a-thump faster and faster in my chest as I read down the Wikipedia page.
On the tenth anniversary of theSeptember 11 attacks, Noam Cohen ofThe New York Timesexplores the mentality and perspectives behind Wikipedia's portrayal of the topic, and specifically the concerted effort to omit mention ofthe conspiracy theories that appear only in the fringes of the international media portrayal of the attacks. In particular, Cohen, who often writes about Wikipedia, highlighted the distinct lack of links between the main article describing the attacks and the article on the conspiracy theories that dispute the widely accepted version of events. Indeed, as Cohen writes, "there is no description of the celebrities who have endorsed the view; no mention of poll results on the subject that show some support among the public; no account, even, of the attraction of conspiracy theories in a time of crisis".
As Cohen admits, not everyone is happy with the status quo, which is distantly removed from the consensus reached on other articles such as that describing theRorschach test. He quotesUser:Arthur Rubin, who argues that although those who believe the conspiracy theories are pushing against the consensus, the phenomenon deserves coverage. "Although the theories are fringe," wrote Rubin, "the fact that there are theories is a mainstream phenomenon." In related news, the state of links to a special "Sep11" wiki created in the aftermath of the attacks was discussed on the wikitech-l mailing list. As of time of writing, the domain name sep11.wikimedia.org redirects to the correct target (theInternet Archive) but URLs of the formhttp://sep11.wikimedia.org/wiki/ do not.
A minimalist makeover
Independent branding agencyMoving Brands haveunveiled a redesign ofthe Wikipedia logo, after being invited byViewpoint Magazine to participate in their Brand Lab initiative. Asked to showcase their skills through a hypothetical redesign of a global brand, Moving Brands selected Wikipedia, based on "an initial assumption that they provided an incredible, free learning resource but were hampered with a weak brand and a ubiquitous but unimpassioned following". The Wikipedia redesign resulted in a minimalist "W"-logo made of five interconnected lines, drawing on the project'sfive pillars concept (mockups are available onFlickr). The consultancy identified Wikipedia's failure as an inability thus far to "communicate its own story, its offer and its role in capturing, building and disseminating global knowledge".
The analysis prompted discussion on thefoundation-l mailing list about Wikimedia as a brand. Whilst there was little support for the specific logo that MovingBrands had designed, there was agreement with their analysis of the image issues Wikimedia faces, including the integration of Wikipedia and its sister projects into a single brand. "Wikipedia has a strong, widely recognizable brand, while the sister projects and the Foundation [itself] don't", wrote Orionist, while Michael Snow suggested that logo redesign, although an attractive move for other companies, was ill-suited to Wikipedia, given that the existing globe logo is well-known. Instead, respondents on the list felt that more obvious links to sister projects were the key to a more integrated Wikimedia family.
Briefly
Arthur Lowe, who, it transpires, didnot dateJoan Collins
Wikipedia vs.Britannica, gender bias round: TheInternational Journal of Communication publishedGender bias in Wikipedia andBritannica, a paper by Joseph Reagle and Lauren Rhue which found that "Wikipedia provides better coverage and longer articles, that Wikipedia typically has more articles on women thanBritannica in absolute terms, but Wikipedia articles on women are more likely to be missing than articles on men relative toBritannica." Reagle is the author of a 2010 book-length study of Wikipedia, entitledGood Faith Collaboration (seeSignpost review).
Lauded by daring librarian: Writing forThe Washington Post's Answer Sheet blog, "daring librarian" Gwyneth Anne Joneswas emphatic in supporting the use of Wikipedia as an informational resource, commending in particular its value as background research and as a portal to further resources.
Leading psychologist urges Wikipedia participation:Positive Psychology News Daily ran aninterview with Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, the outgoing president of theAssociation for Psychological Science (APS), about the association'sWikipedia initiative, which encouraged psychology academics and students to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Dr. Banaji contrasted the managed contribution process of the initiative to psychologists independently contributing, remarking that "Wikipedia does not make it easy" for individuals to participate but also expressed confidence in Wikipedia's normative structures to withstand potential conflicts between contributors. She concluded by urging all psychology lecturers to assign Wikipedia contributions as a part of their courses.
Signpost subtitle punning reaches a new Lowe: DameJoan Collinsblasted her Wikipedia biography for alleged inaccuracies, protesting that she had not, as the article claimed, romanced actorArthur Lowe ofDad's Army fame, but rather cinematic dynasty scionArthur Loew, Jr..
Arkansas welcomes 'Wikipedia Brown':First Arkansas Newsannounced the inception of its new radio show "Wikipedia Brown". Conceived out of a devotion toold-time radio and as an homage to the long-running children's literature novel seriesEncyclopedia Brown ("featuring a kid detective that gets some details terribly wrong"), the radio series has thus far released only its debut episode, "Rue Britannica" (MP3).
Nine holes of wiki: The team behindWiki Golf, asmartphone app that combines a variant of theSix Degrees of Kevin Bacon game as applied to hyperlinked Wikipedia articles with a golf-themed scoring system, hasannounced its second iteration, Wiki Golf 2.0, for the iPhone and iPad. 10% of the profits are to be "donated to Wikipedia to further its mission of making knowledge open and easily accessible"; the exact amount donated so far is not known.
Dating myself here, but as a fan of the Encyclopedia Brown books growing up, I didn't know whether to cringe or laugh at that (very cheesy) Wikipedia Brown program!This simple parody mimics the books pretty well, on the other hand.sonia♫00:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand the idea of not granting undue weight to fringe theories, but forSeptember 11 attacks to avoid even so much as a "See also" link to9/11 conspiracy theories is ridiculous. I don't support such ideas—I detest them, in fact—but to hide them away as though they're a completely insignificant phenomenon is misguided at best. The fact that they're not even mentioned in theSeptember 11 attacks template is even more outrageous.—tktktk02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{September 11 attacks}} has been subject to some edit-warring over the inclusion of such a link; and if that continues the matter should certainly be going into dispute resolution, given that the argument on the template's Talk page is about preference not policy, as far as I can see.Charles Matthews (talk)08:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. the logo redesign. That fiasco was one of the worst episodes in Wikipedia's history. It was an early example of the Foundation's willingness to make unilateral decisions in back rooms (physical or virtual) while ignoring or glossing over community feedback. That's becoming a routine annual or semi-annual event here. The Foundation now has a history and just making changes, giving half-ass lip-service to user feedback, and ignoring contrary opinion until it dies away. The old logo still looks better, by the way.Jason Quinn (talk)17:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
