Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

 Template:NoAutosign in use.  Please remember to sign!

See here for the genesis of this press release. In short, the Oregon Historical Society made the unfortunate decision to cast aspersions on Wikipedia in announcing their Oregon Encyclopedia. Clearly, there is some work to be done in clearing up misconceptions about our project, and building awareness. So let's make a press release of our own.

Edit away!

Who's working on this: Pete, Zab, EncMstr, …

Discussion/goals/strategy[edit]

I like the text EncMstr has been writing on the main page, but I'm not sure it's what we need most at this point. It is an excellent intellectual analysis of the value of Wikipedia, but I think what's needed to grab people's attention in the mainstream press is more of an emotional appeal. The more analytical stuff, I think, works best once somebody is already open to exploring a subject; once they've signed up for a class, for instance, or made the decision to sit down and absorb a long magazine article. In my opinion, what we should be looking to accomplish right now are brief articles in the paper that say, "Hey, Wikipedia is pretty cool, and there's especially cool stuff going on in Oregon. New, home-grown technology and motivated Oregonians are combining to develop a fresh view of Oregon's rich history, and you can help!"

I have a friend at the Trib who is interested by this approach. In my mind, the big question is: do we try to mainly focus on us (probably the better approach), or do we focus on the contrast drawn by the OHS and use it as a tool to show how some of our approaches are superior (less attractive to me, but maybe more "sellable" to a newspaper, as it highlights a controversy.)

There's probably no need to go entirely one way or the other. We could pursue a story in the Trib that primarily covers us, maybe write a similar piece for a blog like BlueOregon, and pursue a story or write an op-ed for the Oregonian that is more of a response to the story they already ran. That one could be heavily based on the email I sent to OHS/PSU, which I emailed to both you guys.

We could also continue to develop the text EncMstr is working on, in the hopes that a publication -- say, Portland Monthly -- wants to do a more in-depth story, and really dig into "what makes Wikipedia different."

What do you guys think of that approach? -Pete (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! This Oregonian blog post completely ignores WP, in claiming that OE is the "first ever..." BUT it links to Roseburg, Oregon on the Roseburg Blast mention! Rich. -Pete (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to fulfill ZabMilenko's third aspect from his setup/introduction. "Competing media" (newspapers, etc.) seemed programmed to view perceived chaos here as inherently suspect, and it's high time they were educated. Clearly that text belongs in a lot more places than an OregonEncyclopedia response. —EncMstr 18:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, we should avoid making direct comparisons between WikiPedia and OHS. By the end of the article, readers should feel as if both mediums deserve legitimacy with neither being better than the other. In this way, we avoid stooping. Certain POV is expected, but things like "wikipedia is better because..." shouldn't be a part of the big picture. Zab (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of my comments below are admittedly a little snarky, and it's not my intent for any of that to make it into a final product. However, I think it's legitimate to point out areas in which WP has excelled, and where OE could be on the wrong track. I would draw the line (quoting from WP:AGF) here: "criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." I think a little carefully-considered criticism is OK, as long as (a) it is not our main focus, and (b) our critique is of specific actions or policies, rather than the general intent of the project or its participants.
That's where I'm coming from, but I suspect it'll be easier to discuss if we have a draft to work on, rather than discussing all this in theory. So, I'm going to concentrate my efforts on that, and hopefully show you something by the end of the day. (I do agree with, I think, everything Zab, EncMstr, and Llywrch have said.) -Pete (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Zab, sorry for mistakenly attributing all the text on the main page to EncMstr. I hadn't noticed you guys were working on it together. -Pete (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"..ripe to be vandalized..." bugs me. Gotta think about that first paragraph. We are going to need a solid intro soon. Zab (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of points[edit]

  • We don't beg for money (though Wikipedia on the whole does raise money). Oregon Encyclopedia is seeking $1 to 2 million in donations. The annual budget for the entire Wikimedia Foundation -- including Wikipedias in dozens of language, and other projects like Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons, is far less than $2 million.[1]
  • Without much press coverage our work still gets widely viewed. (On the day it was featured on WP's front page, Oregon State Capitol was viewed over 22,000 times.)
  • Two notable successes in evaluating Oregon history: (More examples would be good.)
    • Discovering that Mary Ramsey Wood, dubbed Mother Queen of Oregon by the legislature partly for having lived to 120, was actually only 97 years old at the time of her death.
    • Determining that the party led by Sam Barlow and Joel Palmer did not, in fact, traverse Lolo Pass in their blazing of the Barlow Road, as incorrectly reported by many sources.
  • We actively hunt down articles about Aunt Betty and get them removed. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OSAA Speech; prolific contributor Valfontis has nominated over 1200{{fact}} articles for deletion; also, see ColumbiaSoft for an article where suggesting deletion led to a much-improved and well-cited article.)
  • Out of fewer than 2,000 Featured Articles on WP, six are on Oregon-related topics, with many more on the way.
  • Just days ago, Portal:Oregon became one of only 99 Featured Portals, getting comments along the way that it was better than other Featured Portals.
  • A few specific users, cause the papers love that: something about Cacophony's excellent photos, Aboutmovies' contributions to Oregon pioneer history, EncMstr's's recent near-unanimous adminship and/or creation of charts and maps, etc. Also, Mtsmallwood's recent articles on steamboats, such as Steamboats of the Columbia River, directly address the very first question on the Oregon Encyclopedia "fundraising" (er, front) page.
  • Wikipedia content is licensed in such a way that anyone can republish it, for any purpose, without permission; truly a free resource. Oregon Encyclopedia is © PSU.
  • Wikipedia is far more navigable thanks to wikilinks.

Aunt Betty examples[edit]

Is there an admin in the house? If you go through my deleted contributions, doubtless you will find several Aunt Betties you can use that I mercilessly speedy tagged or AFDd... Valfontis (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Moly Batman! You have over 1250 deleted contributions! Aunt Betty, Aunt Belle, Uncle Bob... The list goes on and on!  :-) (Mostly, they are edits to deleted or renamed articles, like Interstate 2. I would have thought that one easy to document...) —EncMstr 02:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General points about Wikipedia and Wikiproject Oregon[edit]

This is a great opportunity to introduce our project to the public. What should be the highlights?

  • Wikipedia does a whole lot, with miniscule financial needs.
  • Media reports of controversy on Wikipedia fail to expose the value of Wikipedia; good content, approved by a number of editors and citing numerous reliable sources, abounds.
  • Wikiproject Oregon adds a great deal of value to Oregon-related content.
  • Portland WikiWednesday offers an opportunity for people to explore the world of wiki in an informal, offline environment.
  • Ward Cunningham, inventor of the wiki, is a Portlander, and remains active in the world of Wiki.
  • Most editors retain some level of anonymity, but publish some information about their interests, and value their evolving reputations on Wikipedia. Some editors publish their full names, as well.
  • Google ranks Wikipedia content highly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EncMstr (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American reference[edit]

Steve Mirsky of Scientific American made a reference to WikiPedia. It is not an endorsement, but it was not a negative reference either. The article is available here. My wife literally found it an hour ago, nearly a month after I read the same article (and obviously missed it). Zab (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alienating their audiences[edit]

One omission in this response, which I feel is most important, is that the attitude this group has taken is that they are harming their ability to recruit volunteers. They speak about wanting to attract help to write more articles, yet IMHO most of the qualified people who could help them best either are or have been Wikipedians.

Most of us are here to contribute content, not to take part in the WikiPolitics. Even those who have soured on Wikipedia for one reason or another (we can all understand why, & I'm certain a few have very good reasons) still consider their contributions to the project worthy of respect.

Lastly, many of us writing Wikipedia are in need of the support of these institutions; they have the materials we need to access. (I had an alumni pass to the PSU library which I used to access a number of books for my research -- until they raised the price to an unreasonable amount.) Even a research library like the OHS is valuable: while the original research rule may keep us from using some of their resources, they still could offer invaluable help in terms of advice & opening other doors -- as well as images and the invaluable permission to reproduce important artifacts. I would rather know that were I to present myself to either of these institutions & say "I'm working on an article for Wikipedia, here are my bona fides, can you help me" they would do so -- rather than treat me with the hostility or brusqueness they save for the kook who wants help to prove that Reed College was named after John Reed. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible outlets to tell our story[edit]

(Question - would anyone be interested in going on air for an interview? I'd be interested, but it's sometimes better to have two people.) -Pete (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I had been hoping that the OHS wasn't really as hostile as they sounded in Muldoon's article, but Baker's R-G article continues the theme:
"The hope is that it will be nothing like Wikipedia, but more like a traditional encyclopedia based on verified facts, with one important difference: It’ll have stuff no one knows about. Yet."
Are they going to uncyclopedia by mistake? We've got work to do. --Esprqii (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puh-leeze! From Mark Baker's piece:
...About $175,000 has been raised so far, and two grants are pending that total about $500,000, he says. Additional grants are being pursued, Lang says.
...And the project is an all-volunteer effort. A staff of about 10, along with the editorial board and an advisory board, “are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts,” Lang says.
I bet our goodness can whip their goodness with our mice tied behind our backs! —EncMstr 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh…yeah, we got some good will to spare…though it may not be too apparent by our present inability to suppress the snarky comments ;) (Self very much included, though I might be getting over it.) -Pete (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Signpost[edit]

They do a regular column featuring various WikiProjects. Maybe it's about time to have them feature us. I think all it takes is a "Hey, feature us!" dropped in the right place and a couple folks willing to talk to them. Valfontis (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Requests for WikiProject features. Valfontis (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for presentation[edit]

Cacophony out of town 17th and 18th, VanTucky best Wed-Thu-Fri.

I. Technology (Jason)

a. wiki =/= wikipedia
  1. Let's begin the discussion by differentiating between the software that runs Wikipedia, called Wiki, and Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia that uses Wiki software.
b. where & why developed
  1. "Wiki" is a type of collaborative software that allows web pages to be created and edited using a web broswer. The software was written in 1994 by a local computer programmer by the name of Ward Cunningham (he has worked at Tektronix and Microsoft in addition to several startups).
  2. The term "wiki" is a Hawaiian word meaning "fast" or "quick".
  3. The goal behind the creation of wiki software was to provide a group a means of working together that is as simple as possible. At its core a wiki allows a group of people (not necessarily the general public) to view and modify a web page using plain text. The wiki software translates this text into HTML that is readable by all web browsers.
c. uses of wiki software
  1. A wiki can have a number of read/write permissions, anywhere from completely open to the general public, to only accessible behind a corporate/governmental firewall and only editable by a set of users. Wikipedia is at the open end of the spectrum, and the internal CIA wiki (theirs has about 10,000 pages) are at the closed end of the spectrum.
  2. There are a multitude of subjects for wikis, for example academic, religious, political, humor, travel guides, music lyrics. My company uses a corporate wiki as a means to create and distribute MOP (Method of Procedure) and SOW (Scope of Work) documents that are editable by managers and viewable by everyone behind the firewall.
d. printout/slide of history page, or watch list

II. Community (Pete)

a. Caverns (novel)
b. the scale of it: #of articles, traffic, schools/academia uses, other publications (CD...) ...
c. Reliable Sources guideline, core policies
d. anecdotes (Barlow Road? Mary Wood?)

III. Content (Steven)

a. Wikipedia
b. Non-Wikipedia wikis, esp. free hosts like pbwiki and wetpaint
c. Books written with wiki

General comments[edit]

We didn't really cover the ratings, GA/FA. It would be good to give them a breakdown of Oregon related articles. Maybe use the FAs as our examples and cover it then? Cacophony (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. Trying to (partially) address this with some of the handouts, below. -Pete (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual aids/handouts[edit]

  • I can explain, no legend needed. This would be best for the content explanation. VanTucky 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some stuff from user pages -- Esprqii (talk · contribs) has a nice chart of stuff he's working on, Aboutmovies (talk · contribs) has some good philosophical ramblings.
  • Our new reference desk.
  • A good article review -- preferably a concise and high quality one. Suggestions?
  • Printouts of some of our better articles. I not so humbly suggest Columbia River; let's do a couple shorter ones as well. Suggestions? We should have an FA, like Oregon State Capitol, New Carissa...
  • Printout of a watch list and/or article history list, with some annotations of "what stuff means."
  • Featured content article from the Signpost
So I'm taking this to mean that we won't have access to a projector and will be doing things the old fashioned way? Cacophony (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a projector? I think we could probably come up with one. I don't personally feel a need for one, but would gladly help you seek one out if you want it. -Pete (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would think the best way to show what Wikipedia is would be to pull up a page, make an edit, look at the history, read the talk page, etc. All of the other things that you mention above could be done just as well with a projector. I do think it would be good to give them at least one pice of paper that they can walk away with. Cacophony (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a projector is possible, the quickest way to explain is with the YouTube vid "Wikis in Plain English". VanTucky 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional articles to hand out:
  • 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is a very good article, and might be unknown to Oregon transplants.
  • Exploding whale is another well-written and enjoyable-to-read work.
  • Nike, Inc. is a good example of decent history, but also with other flagged sections which are works-in-progress. And our most read article, oddly...
—EncMstr 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon/Oregon_Encyclopedia