I still think it highlights a problem with being over reliant on such
outlets as "reliable". My own "original research" has been that
journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong. No
solutions, just pointing it out.
On 4/30/08, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>om>:
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and
they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings
from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as
simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after,
uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but
Special:EmailUser?
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details
of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for
our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of
block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came
across fine.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l