The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at short notice might be good too.
- d.
"Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm
Jon
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at short notice might be good too.
- d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html
Jon
Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote: "Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm
Jon
David Gerard wrote: The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at short notice might be good too.
- d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now ---------------------------------
On 09/02/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html
Oh, that's an excellent one! I neglected to talk up Wikinews in the Guardian interview ...
- d.
The Times has already got its article up.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2032346,00.html
They've opened up a specific "Comments"/Weblog section to discuss the issue. Those who want can offer their views on http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2006/02/washington_edit.html
Jon
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 09/02/06, Jon wrote:
Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html
Oh, that's an excellent one! I neglected to talk up Wikinews in the Guardian interview ...
- d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Hmm, not a bad article, but this bit is worrying:
""They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.
"I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't allow you to edit." "
Somehow the 30 odd policies and nearly 200 guidelines specifically relating to editing got overlooked.
Steve
On 2/9/06, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
"Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm
Jon
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at short notice might be good too.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Somehow the 30 odd policies and nearly 200 guidelines specifically relating to editing got overlooked.
I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.
-Phil
On 2/9/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.
Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are* policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in particular about the project.
Analogy: You get hired to work as a programmer for Microsoft. On the first day, you make a couple of major changes to the kernel. When your CVS changes get reverted, you express surprise - "If they didn't want me to edit code, why would they hire me?". The point is, you know that there are rules for what code you should and shouldn't edit, even if you aren't aware of what those rules are.
So, we should be happy for users to edit in blissful ignorance, but at the very very least we should make them aware that there are rules, and if they break them, we will politely let them know, and tell them which one they broke.
Steve
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are* policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in particular about the project.
Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.
-Phil
On 2/9/06, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are* policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in particular about the project.
Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.
-Phil
Are you going to make that policy or a guideline? -- geni
Yah but rules are only applied based upon a) Who you are; b) who your friends are; c) your ideological purity.
nobs
On 2/9/06, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.
On 09/02/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, not a bad article, but this bit is worrying:
""They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.
"I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't allow you to edit." "
Huh. Parse that as "They've got a provision in the Constitution for politicians passing laws when the law needs fixing. I presume that if they didn't want us to change all the laws [in our favour], they wouldn't have that provision" and see how far it gets you.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
Well I've been told that I'm "special" a few times in the past, so I guess this is another of those times ;-) Happy to take phoned interviews at minimal notice (have done before, will do again, I guess). In person if they send a car ...
Alison 020 7419 1017
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media contact for *special* days like this.
I always get worried when I see that word in one of your posts, David. Nothing personal, but the thought of you in drag makes my blood run cold.
Pete, with the greatest respect
On 2/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
The Australian press has discovered it too: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18101931-2,00.html
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 2/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
The Australian press has discovered it too: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18101931-2,00.html
It's an interesting example of how errors manage to creep in. The article states that Meehan is a Senator; he's a Representative. It also states that he had planned to limit himself to four years in Congress; that should read four terms. These are innocent errors that do not affect the impact of the article. It's easy to spot these when you are familiar with the issue, but it leaves one wondering about fact checking and the reliability of what we read in the newspapers. ;-)
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
It's an interesting example of how errors manage to creep in. The article states that Meehan is a Senator; he's a Representative. It also states that he had planned to limit himself to four years in Congress; that should read four terms. These are innocent errors that do not affect the impact of the article. It's easy to spot these when you are familiar with the issue, but it leaves one wondering about fact checking and the reliability of what we read in the newspapers. ;-)
When a newspaper publishes an article on some area of my oarticular interest, written by a regular journalist, they INVARIABLY get some important (to me) facts wrong. I've lost count of how often I've seen an APC or SPG misidentified as "a tank" in photograph captions, for example.
Wikipedia is hardly exempt, as we all know. However, there's always that [edit] button, and how often do we wish that there was something similar for newspaper sites, eh?
Peter (Skyring)
On 2/10/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
Wikipedia is hardly exempt, as we all know. However, there's always that [edit] button, and how often do we wish that there was something similar for newspaper sites, eh?
Not just newspaper sites - pretty much every document I come across anywhere I wish I could edit. Then again, I am (as of a month ago) a professional technical writer...:)
Steve