Michael Peel wrote: > In terms of the content of the press release, there still seem to be > some outstanding questions. Andrew posted on the talk page 5 days ago, > pointing out a few things, which it would be good to discuss. The > central point is: are we absolutely positive that the facts are > completely accurate? Also, note that the press release as it stands is > lacking a headline and a date. I don't agree with the Talk page comment "release should promote WMUK and its activities, e.g. Britain Loves Wikipedia, as much as possible". My views on press releases are probably known to readers of the list by now. I would go so far as to say that "corporate identity" material is dead weight in getting media attention. To put it another way, promotion through simply contacting the media has to earn its keep.
On the issue of handling, I have been in contact with a Board member, and I imagine my views will be represented to the Board. I'll pass on second-guessing the detailed drafting. 70 years is correct for the UK, that much is clear, and _in the press release_ nothing else should be brought in. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
