Zambian president Michael Sata reacted angrily to reports of his death-by-Wikipedia earlier this month, the Telegraph reports, after a miscreant edited the politico's article to include a spurious account of his assassination. According to the Lusaka Times, the vandalism was treated with utmost concern by the Zambian government, with Information Broadcasting and Tourism Minister Fackson Shamenda summoning media chiefs for a conference in its wake to discuss the need for restrictions of press freedom.
The Zambia Daily Mail reported the attribution of the misdeed to "the work of uncouth individuals who have failed to accept electoral defeat", that they were "intended to create chaos by causing despondency among Zambians" and "of great concern to Government as they are likely to bring confusion in the country". The edits were characterised as "unchristian" by Reverend Pukuta Mwanza of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, and as "inhuman" by Foundation for Democratic Process head MacDonald Chipenzi, while former Church of God overseer John Mambo implored the government to pursue the culprits. Zambia Congress of Trade Unions spokesman Martin Chembe declared that those responsible were intent on spreading rancour in the country so as to impede the government's work, and decried the fact that it was possible to employ such tactics to deflect attention from the focus of improving the well-being of the Zambian people.
The Times of Zambia subsequently revealed that, in a development distinctly at odds with typical responses to biographical vandalism on-wiki, the government of the southern African state had petitioned their United States counterparts to assist in tracking the perpetrators. Minister of Home Affairs Kennedy Sakeni professed that "This process is moving well and all necessary formalities are being considered as you know we have to follow rightful diplomatic channels between our country and US government". In turn, visiting US deputy assistant Secretary of State Reuben Brigety pledged his government's willingness to come to Zambia's aid. The episode may illustrate national governments' ineptitude in grappling with the 21st century information network, as the edits in question appear to geolocate to yet another jurisdiction, the United Kingdom.
[Wikipedia] has become central repository of our knowledge in many ways, like it or not. Embrace it and participate. Start by just rating articles or giving feedback, then experiment with editing or adding sources. You don’t have to leap straight into writing articles.
The Knight Digital Media Center this week conducted an interview with Fabrice Florin, a former contractor on the Article Feedback tool initiative who was recently announced as the Wikimedia Foundation's Product Manager for New Editor Engagement, responsible for directing the development of technical features intended to ameliorate the decline in editor replenishment rates.
Florin, whose background is in journalism, spoke at length about the intersecting worlds of Wikipedia and journalism, encouraging his colleagues to engage more with the encyclopaedia both by deferring to its in-depth coverage in their reports and by actively editing themselves. He elaborated on these themes in a post shared with the Knight Center, speaking of the encyclopaedia as "a de-facto news organization in its own right".
Although Wikipedia is highly rated for usability by readers (see this week's Technology report), the daunting challenging of the editing interface for prospective contributors has long been fingered as the chief contributing cause to flagging participation. This problem, as well as readers' lack of awareness that they are actively encouraged to participate as editors, is at the crux of Florin's concerns. However, the characterisation of the already controversial Article Feedback Tool as primarily an attempt to lure new editors – with garnering suggestions and critical evaluations for article improvement as secondary benefits – may well unsettle English Wikipedia editors wary of its deployment to date.
Discuss this story
I was very surprised at Fabrice Florin's statement "The vision is that over time, news reporters would get in the habit of posting updates on Wikipedia, after they have filed their story and shared it on social networks. It seems like a worthy goal and I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether this is a realistic scenario—and if so, how we might help make that happen." I consider this advice extremely dangerous, and I wish there would have been an area (i.e. not obscure comments) where I could have made it clear how ill-advised it is, in my view. Making updates on Wikipedia related to stories one has written runs a severe risk of being taken to task over charges of CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! and SELF-PROMOTION!!!, and I would strongly recommend any journalist to avoid it except in extreme circumstances. I've gotten grief at times even for making talk-page suggestions (granted, usually for contentious topics, but the point remains - the aggravation is rarely worth it, or at least is a significant cost). It is not a realistic scenario at all, except in the sense that the negatives will be hidden to get free work before it blows up in the reporter's face. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is a "hericidal Zambian cyberassassin"? Neither Wiktionary nor Google recognizes "hericidal" as an English word. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Foundation über alles"
Who is responsible for "Foundation über alles" as a headline? Extremely dubious taste.