---- "AGK" <wikiagk(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> From: "AGK" <wikiagk(a)googlemail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
>
> >
> > To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they
> > know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the
> > awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
>
> The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and
> it's harming our public image.
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.
The Daily Mail will spin the story as they see fit. What we might disagree with is the editorialising, which we can do little about, not any errors of fact.
The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted user has managed to deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our systems were inadequate to deal with this.
I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make sure this doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay controversy, requiring trusted users to verify their identities seems like a sensible response.
Andrew
