Through ignorance, through weakness, through its own deliberate fault...?
;)
Interestingly enough, though, Blacketer wasn't the one who removed the
"consistency" comment he was the one who added it in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=242271726&oldi
d
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Harry Willis wrote:
> To borrow WP:COI, I
> can hardly see that advancing outside interests was more important than
> advancing the aims of Wikipedia in this case.
This isn't very related to your issue, but if WP:COI says this (and it seems
to) it's very easy to interpret as "f
>
> Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? Not that I can see. Some of
> the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance, but that's
> pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the
> relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation.
(Belated re
AGK wrote:
>> Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? Not that I can see. Some of
>> the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance, but that's
>> pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the
>> relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation.
Nieman Journalism Lab has some more about what's going on, including
details direct from Google:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/google-news-experimenting-with-links-to-wikipedia-on-its-homepage/
“Currently, we’re showing a small number of users links to Wikipedia
topic pages that serve as a refe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charles says: "All that can be done with the press is to try to get your own
spin in there, along with what they'll print anyway." Charles is quite
wrong; that is not all that can be done. Once can refute vociferously -
anywhere and everywhere. Sadly though, Wikipedia and Jimbo are afraid to do
tha
I can't speak for the Foundation, but I assure you that we at Wikimedia UK are
doing our best to defend and promote the Wikimedia projects against all unfair
criticism, including these articles.
Personally, I thought the article would have been worse if it had omitted the
paragraph from Wikime
"AGK" wrote:
> From: "AGK"
>
> > Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? Not that I can see. Some of
> > the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance, but that's
> > pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the
> > relationship betwee
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Andrew
> Turvey wrote:
>> I've seen (source:Wikipedia) quoted a few times on media pictures now.
>
> Well, that's the media. :-) They're used to being able to just say
> random things like "source: Reuters" tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well, I mean, what difference does it make? I guess it probably should
have a link, but, honestly, with the number of Wikipedia images being
reused these days, I don't think it would be worth it to attempt to
track them all down...
- --Unionhawk
Carch
Nothing of substance done to refute the Hattersley rubbish. Jimbo claimed to
be in conversation with the paper - in truth, the paper dismissed him and
Wikipedia's PR trembled from the sidelines.
Giano
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> I can't speak for the Foundation, but
12 matches
Mail list logo
