Should we promote Wikimedia?

Opposition to press coverage[edit]

I oppose all attempts to promote Wikipedia to press outlets. We do not need such promotion. Futhermore, such promotion causes overall slowness of the system and increases the number of vandals - in other words, it becomes a waste of all our time -- and for what? I see nothing valuable to media attention. Kingturtle 00:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The current draft Wikimedia mission statement includes the aim "to encourage the growth and development of free content" and this seems to be central to most explanations I have heard of the motivation behind the actions of Jimbo and others at the very heart of the project. I note, skimming, that the MeatBall page referenced mentions that "[t]his is especially true if you value CommunityOverContent" - in the case of the Wikimedia projects (including, but no longer limited to, Wikipedia) this is not the case, as the primary focus is, and always has been, the production of high quality, Free, reference materials. Thus media attention, and the recognition and status it implies, can be considered an end in itself, since it increases the number of people aware of the resources already produced. Indeed, that it also welcomes an ever-increasing number and range of contributors to that content is also very much in line with the central philosophy characterised by the espousal of wiki technology.

That popularity comes with its own challenges is both undeniable and inevitable, but if the aim of a project is inclusiveness of contributions and a wide reach of audience, overcoming these challenges is simply a part of that aim. In other words, the technical and social implications of growth must be overcome if the project is to succeed, as the alternative is simply to hide ourselves away and accept a permanent minority status. Either we encourage continued growth in every way possible, or we impose an arbitrary limit on our own existence. - IMSoP 19:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Kingturtle and think each of his/her points can be rebutted as follows:

We do not need such promotion / I see nothing valuable to media attention. The point of the exercise, for some of us, to is write stuff that will be read. Promoting the wiki promotes readership and, as noted below, authorship.

Futhermore, such promotion causes overall slowness of the system. Not particularly. Occasional downtime on a squid server promotes slowness. But the wiki seems to fare well against recent slashdotting. There is little point in this resource if we have to hide it under a bushel.

and increases the number of vandals but also the number of positive contributors and page protectors; the evidence is that these last two categories outweigh the vandals, whose work is always quickly reverted.

in other words, it becomes a waste of all our time -- and for what? I see nothing valuable to media attention. On balance, I suppose it to bring readers, authors, new articles; and not particularly to affect the signal to noise ratio ... generally seems to be a positive thing to do, and one which does not seem to inconvenience anyone. --Tagishsimon

I say go for it! Wikipedia is the Sex and the City of the 00's but for that prediction to come true we need television and newspaper coverage, as well as posters, t-shirts, hats, mugs, hot wheel cars and trivia games with our name on them!

"Antonio Coors on my Head Martin"