The Resources page links to forty-eight mainstream and tech articles
with another 30 or 40 reprints or summaries of those in smaller
mainstream publications. The fourteen blog and other entries are just a
smattering of the higher quality blog and activist commentary on
Wikipedia. So there is a lot of good work being done, in between the
crappy commentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1
On 9/11/2014 8:14 PM, LB wrote:
I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms
(real journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would
be hard on the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a
hostile work environment and I for one am tired of it.
Lightbreather
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com
<mailto:risker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on
anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
