WIKINDX

WIKINDX Resources

Web Article: BibTeX citation key:  Elsharbaty2016
SAMIR ELSHARBATY. 2016. News on Wikipedia: Wikipedians track the Dakota Access Pipeline. Wikimedia Foundation blog Accessed 17th Feb 2017, from: <https://blog.wikimedia. ... dakota-access-pipeline/>.
Added by: sashi 2017-02-17 17:10:32
 B  
Categories: history, speaking through machines, speaking to machines
Keywords: activism, COI, consensus, DAPL, ecology, Indigenous rights, Kelcy Warren, lobbying, ontology, Wikipedia, WMF
Creators: Elsharbaty
Collection: Wikimedia Foundation blog

Number of views:  34
Popularity index:  14.72%

 
Abstract
Three days before I was blocked from en.wiki, this article appeared. I (SashiRolls) had spent several hours responding to the journalist's questions, though only the most flattering bits made it to print. While the journalist said that he would also be contacting Gandydancer and Beagle, the lead authors on #NoDAPL and #DAPL respectively, he did not convince them to participate. The article contains a link to an interesting video presentation made by Pete Forsyth. The juiciest part of my response to his questions were not published. Some comments in retrospect:

The Wikipedia page on the DAPL protests was originally named ReZpect Our Water, which allowed Gandydancer to work under the radar of any potential lobbyists. Her user page, incidentally, is a great source of knowledge about Wikipedian history and praxis.

The company's name for the event became the encyclopedic name for the event (stored in Wikidata): this is a logical consequence of the way in which the news was reported by the mainstream media.

It was not mentioned that the main editor of the Dakota Access Pipeline page was Beagel, a pipeline expert with over 85,000 edits globally (Beagel appears to live in Finland, though he may well be part of the Russian speaking minority, his contributions on pipelines are multilingual.)

This article was briefly discussed on the ill-fated forum "Wikipedia Sucks! (and So Do Its Critics)." There it was mentioned that the article was a testament to the en.wiki community's hostility towards Wikinews (which requires a waiting period and peer review (also possibly a more hierarchical editing process)).
Added by: sashi    Last edited by: sashi

 
Notes
archived version

when I google Dakota Access Pipeline the first page of the response is interesting:

#1: wikipedia (Dakota Access Pipeline page)
#2: DAPL facts (operated by oil lobby interets: significant primary documents)
#3: BBC story
pictures (Time, Yahoo, The Guardian)
#4: Guardian topic
#5: NYT map
#6. Sacred Stone Camp (.org) (water protectors / protesters)
#7. ABCnews
#8. Buzzfeed
#9: Time

All of the links are .com, except wikipedia (#1) and sacred stone camp (#7) which are .org

From page 2, the results are shortened slightly by the presence of paid ads from the aforementioned #2 result (daplfacts.com) and from (standingrockfactchecker.org) run by the same interests (sock1)

The inconvenient Dakota Access Pipeline protests § page I worked on a bit does not pop out unless you add the word "protests" to the search query.

Duckduckgo presents the same #1 and #2 but interestingly Democracy Now!, NPR, and the army (along with a whole host of daplfacts sockpuppet sites) also appear. Sacred Stone Camp falls by the wayside ... and the #NoDAPL Wiki-page is likewise nowhere to be seen (though curiously it does draw up a Heavy article titled Dakota Access Pipeline Protests).

Just as a reminder to myself, I still haven't commented on the WMF blogpost about it. Maybe that should be in my "things I will do" category since they cite me, but first I'm going to have to look in the mirror and decide just how bad I look in this tin hat.

Also please consider replacing every occurence of "google" as a verb in daily speech with "duck"; this is called quacktivism. ^^

posted at Wikipedia Review
Added by: sashi    Last edited by: sashi

 
Musings
By clicking on the link to my webpage you can read my review of this article which I helped Samir to prepare. The perspective is considerably more critical. What is particularly pertinent perhaps on the page is the discussion on the wiki-history tool, the global user contributions tool (which does not appear to have been used in writing this article), and some sock-puppets of DAPLfacts who advertise at Google and are well-placed at Duckduckgo. http://biblio.creoliste.fr/index.php?action=resourceView&id=246

posted on the article 24 Feb 2017
Added by: sashi
 

 
wikindx  v3.8.2 ©2007     |     Total Resources:  254     |     Database queries:  44     |     Script execution:  0.16966 secs