You make a good point about how out-of-whack the general public's attention to Wikipedia's internal workings is, when considering how popular it is as a source of information. It seems to me executives at Google or Twitter can hardly cough without it being reported all over U.S. news outlets. Contrast with the near-silence about anything that goes on either at WMF or the projects (and I haven't even touched on how many people think the WMF has editorial control over the projects). To take a tentative stab at explaining it, maybe part of it is the attitude that encyclopedias are something boring and "uncool". And let's not overlook the impact of advertising. (Which leads me to a minor brainstorm: would it be worth it for the WMF to spend some money on educating the public about how the projects work?) -- 71.119.131.184 ( talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In my darker moments I suspect some of the powers-that-be are less than eager to dispel misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Can it be that the life of wikipedia community simply lacking events of non-local importance? All our internal dramas are tempest in a teaspoon. On the other hand, whenever something in wikipedia rattles the meatworld, it is usually covered, albeit in an underqualified way. So for the latter case I think a "part-time/shared WiR" would be a good idea at major media outlets, if only for the cases when next wikishit hits the fan. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, wikimedia PR could have been doing a better job if the start writing decent overviews and try to push them into Popular Science, Baltimore Sun, Apopka Snake Catcher, etc. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Press coverage.— Wavelength ( talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Competitors cannot be expected to boost their opponents. Get real: this project is taking down the old mainstream (commercial) outlets. Eyeballs matter and this site steals them. — Rgdboer ( talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
re: "...news coverage is inadequate for a website and movement as large and influential as Wikipedia and Wikimedia." Wait a sec. If we are so influential, why the heck do we need more media coverage? Everybody knows where wikipedia is and can peek a glance by themselves without any intermediaries. We are not peddling some business; everybody knows us already. So what's the purpose the extra coverage besides natural vanity?
For comparison, how much media coverage does New York Times have? (I mean news about the NYT.) Or about Random House? Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point about how out-of-whack the general public's attention to Wikipedia's internal workings is, when considering how popular it is as a source of information. It seems to me executives at Google or Twitter can hardly cough without it being reported all over U.S. news outlets. Contrast with the near-silence about anything that goes on either at WMF or the projects (and I haven't even touched on how many people think the WMF has editorial control over the projects). To take a tentative stab at explaining it, maybe part of it is the attitude that encyclopedias are something boring and "uncool". And let's not overlook the impact of advertising. (Which leads me to a minor brainstorm: would it be worth it for the WMF to spend some money on educating the public about how the projects work?) -- 71.119.131.184 ( talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
In my darker moments I suspect some of the powers-that-be are less than eager to dispel misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Can it be that the life of wikipedia community simply lacking events of non-local importance? All our internal dramas are tempest in a teaspoon. On the other hand, whenever something in wikipedia rattles the meatworld, it is usually covered, albeit in an underqualified way. So for the latter case I think a "part-time/shared WiR" would be a good idea at major media outlets, if only for the cases when next wikishit hits the fan. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, wikimedia PR could have been doing a better job if the start writing decent overviews and try to push them into Popular Science, Baltimore Sun, Apopka Snake Catcher, etc. Staszek Lem ( talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Press coverage.— Wavelength ( talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Competitors cannot be expected to boost their opponents. Get real: this project is taking down the old mainstream (commercial) outlets. Eyeballs matter and this site steals them. — Rgdboer ( talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
re: "...news coverage is inadequate for a website and movement as large and influential as Wikipedia and Wikimedia." Wait a sec. If we are so influential, why the heck do we need more media coverage? Everybody knows where wikipedia is and can peek a glance by themselves without any intermediaries. We are not peddling some business; everybody knows us already. So what's the purpose the extra coverage besides natural vanity?
For comparison, how much media coverage does New York Times have? (I mean news about the NYT.) Or about Random House? Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)