On 20/12/2007, Rjd0060 - <rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: Same reason as slashdot. If you come from the internet then wikipedia is big. -- geni

On 20/12/2007, Rjd0060 - <rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: We're a large (in terms of visibility) organisation with a well-known name and certain features (regularly scheduled internal schisms, generally high transparency, and people in general not knowing how we do what we do) that make us a hilarious and constantly-amusing subject to cover in this way. Ain't going to change under any forseeable circumstances. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 21/12/2007, Rjd0060 - <rjd0060.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: I understand a number of Inquirer reporters are going "what on earth" at the Carolyn Doran story (the huge mug shot being what made it *really* tasteful) and trying to lift their game so they're not taken as the same sort of thing as the new Register, ad-banner trolling and all. The Inquirer's hardware obsession is detailed enough to be extremely dull at times, so at least they've got some practice with actual journalism. - d.

On Dec 19, 2007 6:26 PM, Nathan Awrich <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: He's written for The Register for some time. One can presume that they added Wikipedia to the list of things he's expected to be covering as a natural outgrowth of the Foundation moving to San Francisco. That is par for the course for any news or features oriented organization. A perfectly innocent explanation, rather than either Metz or The Register suddenly deciding to focus malign intent on Wikipedia, is simply that Metz is one of many tech reporters in the San Francisco region, many of whose attention we're going to get more of with the Foundation in their back yard. For a vast majority of them this is a good thing for us and will benefit the Foundation and projects over time. Metz started off jumping on some salacious and critical points about Wikipedia; while unfortunate, we can hope that he does work towards a more normal coverage over time, consistent with the usual The Register standards. The Reg is not the New York Times by any means, but also doesn't *just* focus on negative stories all the time. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com