Martin Richards wrote:
From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,16541,1599325,00.html
That article is vaguely interesting, but the fact they have an ex E-Britannica guy commenting on our encyclopedia article says a lot about what they wanted to hear.
The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia (so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).
That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.
- d.
On 10/25/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia (so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).
That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.
The guy looking at the entry on TS Eliot was critical because it didn't list his book in the bibliography. I think that's certainly an unfair criticism.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
On 10/25/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
The guy looking at the entry on TS Eliot was critical because it didn't list his book in the bibliography. I think that's certainly an unfair criticism.
His words were " It doesn't list my book in the bibliography, but there are plenty of other useful links."
This didn't sound like criticism to me. It was a simple remark followed by a qualification: "there are plenty of other useful links." He might just as likely have two other motives for making those remarks: either to promote his book to the reader, or to persuade the reader to place a link to his book in the article.
Stephen Bain wrote
The guy looking at the entry on TS Eliot was critical because it
didn't list his book in the bibliography. I think that's certainly an unfair criticism.
No. He (Anthony Julius) mentioned that his book wasn't included as a reference. He didn't make this a criticism. (If the article went deeply into the Eliot-anti-Semitism row, it should mention the book, which is a thorough survey of what the row is about).
Some of these comments about the Guardian seem far too defensive.
Charles
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 10/25/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Guardian Online really, really loves Wikipedia because the managing editor of the online edition really, really loves Wikipedia (so I was told at a job interview there a few months ago, when the interviewer noticed "Wikipedia" in my interests ;-).
That said, I find it hard to consider the above unfair. It's the real-world acid test and mostly rings true to me.
The guy looking at the entry on TS Eliot was critical because it didn't list his book in the bibliography. I think that's certainly an unfair criticism.
I think his comments were a little tongue-in-cheek.
Ec