On Dec 4, 2007 12:14 AM, Ral315 en.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that
couldn't
happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
To call The Register a newspaper is quite a stretch (even if they are, technically). Their business model is to piss off as many people as possible in order to increase page views and ad revenue. They've found that Wikipedians get pissed off quite frequently, and decided to go with it on a regular basis.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/wikipedia_aphrodites_araldite/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/
-- Sincerely, Ral315 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this evening, we have well over 1000 links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's some major cleaning up to do. I doubt you'll manage to convince all ov the editors on all of the articles where it is used that it is that bad of a source. I'll agree it comes out a bit like a hit piece, but I've seen far worse in "reliable" sources on similar subjects. It would be interesting to know if the Foundation or Jimbo were asked to comment though, which is one thing the article doesn't say.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l