I'd agree it turned out well. Only one patently disgruntled vicar (of course, being an authority figure in a state sanctioned church might make anyone feel entitled to be such an ass) aside, everyone else seemed not even to be seriously unhappy if, say, we got their birth date off by a day or so. It seems that all sources considered reliable occasionally make fact checking mistakes like that, so truly notable people don't much think it's a death knell for Wikipedia. They just like that for once they got a mention that wasn't written from one journalist's interpretation.

On 8/16/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:

On 8/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/highlights?articleid=3115718

References! References! References!

I'd say that overall we got a pretty good grade. The only guy who was really critical was the first one. One thing that does seem to crop up is birthdays (but that's apparently hard for any bibliographic piece to figure out).

It's always nice when people say "There were a couple of details wrong, but I love wikipedia and use it all the time!" Like they don't want to criticise us even though they might have grounds for it :)

--Oskar

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l