Interesting article. I am disappointed though that it didn't say that people who have articles written about them *are* encouraged to raise concerns on the talk page or via OTRS (the volunteer response team). Some of these claims may be magnified, given excessive weight, or details of later aspects of the story omitted (e.g. another newspaper may have provided a different view on some of the stories).
You have to remember that the Daily Telegraph, as the newspaper that published the expenses scandal details (and maybe some of the other stories as well), is not entirely unbiased in this itself. It has an interest in some of these stories retaining a high profile.
The expenses scandal cover-up story (linked from the article you linked to) is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7696484/MPs-accused-...
Carcharoth
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:55 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-cov...
Nothing unusual and nothing saying we've erred in any way, surprisingly and pleasingly - they put blame strictly on those making the changes.
Last two paras:
"There are no rules preventing staff at the Houses of Parliament from changing Wikipedia entries. The parliamentary IT policy warns users not to create material which could be "threatening, slanderous, abusive, indecent, obscene, racist, illegal or offensive".
"Wikipedia's own rules of conduct discourage editing by individuals with a "conflict of interest" – which would include the MPs themselves, their staff and family members."
I could ask for little ways it could be better, but I can't see anything wrong with this article.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l