Nathan wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. Stephen Foley also writes on financial stuff
(byline New York) and judging by a previous piece thinks bits of
tabloidesque gossip (recycled into this one, BTW) are on-topic. Well,
for flagged revisions they are not. You could say that problems with the
Ulrika Johnson article _are_ on-topic, but people who judge Wikipedia by
what it has to say about Ulrika ... let's just say they may miss
information that might be more useful to them.
All the coverage on FR gets the timescale wrong, considering that the
Germans reported on the experience at Wikimania 2008, after which it was
certainly on the cards for enWP in some form.
Charles