On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the
press
accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that
critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as
comments on this list tend to be.
IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's
publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list.
That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader
"on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.
Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets
like Reuters,
their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper,
online, television, radio, etc. The media reports this as evidence
that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate,
they should be called on it.
Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic
thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each
passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite
that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact
with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting
worse. If that makes sense.
Steve