Sj wrote:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=10909&hed=Wiki+wars
Makes it sound as though we will have professional editors next year, hmmm. When will someone write an article on Gdanzig? Aside from a few minor errors - the # of times arts were protected and the "Wikipedia Foundation" - it's pretty positive.
Well, there's also an error of sorts in their graphic of "Wikipedia's Most Contentious Entries", which includes the frequently edited [[Recent deaths]]. Unless of course they're referring to the edit wars over whether Derrida is really dead, based on a deconstruction of the concept of death.
--Michael Snow
In order to maintain good relations with the press, I'll comment only delicately on this one.
In my opinion, the situation with the Bush and Kerry articles is routine at wikipedia. Yes, they are heavily edited. But there has been no real internal controversy about them. It's just that they are popular topics, and Bush is a controversial president (as was Clinton before him, except wikipedia did not exist then). I say: *yawn*
The reporters wanted to write an article about some astounding and unprecedented wikipedia controversy about the election. I was quoted selectively to make that case.
The article does not reflect badly on us or anything, but I can say that the reporters wrote the article that they wanted to write, my comments completely notwithstanding.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
The article does not reflect badly on us or anything, but I can say that the reporters wrote the article that they wanted to write, my comments completely notwithstanding.
--Jimbo
In other, the article is a "red herring"?
TBSDY