On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you guys realize that the articles
published in The Register are
not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia
spokesperson claims), and appear quite
well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The second bit of that may be true (there are a lot of idiots in the
world), but the first part simply isn't. The Register is full of
nonsense. I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and
they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them
together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said
something very different to what I actually said. That is *not*
reputable journalism.
I think they may very well be a decent journalistic source in certain
areas - some of their tech reporting is quite good - but when it comes
to Wikipedia, they haven't got a good track record (to say the least).
People who only know of the Register from its reporting in general
technology may not be aware of its shadier handling of Wikipedia.
I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been some sort of official
response to these articles yet; the first one was five days ago and the
second was three days ago, with Seth Finkelstein's story in between. Most
media will send advance copies to the subjects of their articles in order to
permit prompt response; given that Jimmy was already in the UK at the time,
I would have expected some sort of response while he was there.
Risker