Wikipedia editing
February 21st, 2010 at 11:49 am by David FarrarThe HoS reports:
Auckland Museum’s head of public relations has written a glowing Wikipedia entry for his under-fire boss during business hours.
Russell Briggs omitted the controversy that has plagued Dr Vanda Vitali’s tenure as director of Auckland Museum.
His entry appears to breach Wikipedia’s guidelines, which state that entries should be unbiased and balanced.
I’m quoted in the article, and said to the reporter that Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral point of view, and it is hard to achieve that if you are writing about your boss!
Having said that, creating a page without criticism for your boss, is not as big a “sin” as editing a page to remove such criticism, and I predicted that one the article appeared, other Wikipedians would edit it, so it is a more balanced article.
And indeed, if you go to her article now, it has been edited several times, and is now much more balanced.
Tags: Auckland Museum, Russell Briggs, Vanda Vitali, Wikipedia
February 21st, 2010 at 12:57 pm
” His entry appears to breach Wikipedia’s guidelines, which state that entries should be unbiased and balanced. ”
How can someone unable to comply with such simple and necessary rulings hold a senior position at one of NZ’s public institutions? This kind of poor judgment should be enough to initiate a review of the offender’s employment status.
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
> This kind of poor judgment should be enough to initiate a review of the offender’s employment status.
You mean to tell me that you take Wikipedia that seriously?
Incidentally, they had an article titled “List of fictional female robots and cyborgs” the last time I looked.
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
And now for something completely different:
A caption competition….
http://smilepanic.com/images/stories/2009_feb_01/13/12.jpg
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 6:09 pm
The only real questions can be;
Was this person paid while they wrote this Wikipedia entry?
Who by?
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Grain of salt anyone?
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 6:17 pm
” You mean to tell me that you take Wikipedia that seriously? ”
Are you nuts? Its nothing to do with what degree anyone takes Wikipedia seriously.
Its a demonstration of poor judgment that someone in the perps position should not be guilty of. He’s obviously a bozo in a station that far exceeds his capabilities. He needs to be either fired or demoted.
Vote:February 21st, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Hi David
Thanks for writing about this, because it gives me a chance to say something, which I would never be given at the Herald on Sunday. I fully admit to creating the first draft of the wiki page, simply because we are asked all the time for background and biographical/historical information on Vanda Vitali, and it’s not appropriate to put that kind of information on a public museum website.
My templae for the first draft of my wiki page was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_D_Lowry
Glenn is an interesting and visionary Director who has lived through his fair share of controversy, but provides a simple biographical note that stresses previous work experience and publications. One might also look at Seddon Bennington’s (pre-his passing) for a similar entry.
The incidents referred to in the article were Board-level actions that, in normal museum definition, don’t get singled out as being part of the Director’s oeuvre. Perhaps this was a bit naive on my part, but since this is Wikipedia, I assumed that the public would correct it if I got it wrong, and again, I was following a precedent on a couple of active, unquestioned entries.
As for the commentor who asks why this was done and on whose dollar, in contrast to the allegations of our local tabloid, I simply put this up in order to have a legitimate, public-vetted space to respond to regular and worthwhile questions about our Director’s background. It saves a lot of time (and money) this way, and, let’s face it, it would be really weird to somehow lever it on to a museum website, wouldn’t it?
No sock puppetry in any way was intended, and I honestly thought I was following the example of several perfectly acceptable entries. All museum Directors live in the shadow of controversy – it is their stock in trade if they have a vision to nudge an institution along in its evolutionary path. Comes with the job. Judging from the dozen or so other Director wikis I read before drafting this, those issues are usually dealt with on the institution’s wiki page, not the Director’s, reflecting the fact that those decisions are rarely solely those of the Director, and usually in concert with the Board/Governing Body.
Again, I appreciate the chance to say this. I’d like to think that I have the social media-sensitivity to get these things at least close to right. Maybe I’ve got something to learn, but I’d rather learn it here, from people that know these things and have something to teach.
Cheers,
Vote:Russell Briggs
February 21st, 2010 at 10:53 pm
” Perhaps this was a bit naive on my part, ”
Sorry Mr. Briggs but we (that’s the taxpayer) don’t pay specialist employees your kind of salary on the basis that they’re too “naive” to understand how Wiki operates.
If you’re in the museum business, you should have known better than to write an argumentative post to Wiki. There’s not many who do not understand Wiki’s need for neutrality, and those that don’t abide by that simple requirement are usually found to be breaching it intentionally in the hope they won’t get pulled up.
Vote:February 22nd, 2010 at 10:45 am
Its fucking wikipedia not the bloody Oxford dictonary. Get over it.
Wikipedia is not a source, if you’re lucky its a starting point. And the the wikipedia entry on Russell Briggs saying hes a an enormous with brown eyes may or may not be true. Who can say.
Vote:February 22nd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I concur Murray.
Vote: