User:Panyd, who spotted the start of this whole incident on DYK, gave an interview with Slate magazine, which she's been very misquoted in and is a little upset about. She just emailed the UK list explaining her thoughts on all this, so I'm sharing them here: * * *"I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is actually doing - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write.* * * *For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: "Eh, you're wrong." That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from both sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them.* * * *I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community.* * * *Fiona "*
Link to the article:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_...
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
User:Panyd, who spotted the start of this whole incident on DYK, gave an interview with Slate magazine, which she's been very misquoted in and is a little upset about. She just emailed the UK list explaining her thoughts on all this, so I'm sharing them here:
*"I gave Slate an interview in the hopes of being the first non-crazy person to talk about what Roger is actually doing - which, yes, I still have problems with - but which isn't being Scrooge McDuck using WMUK to grab all the money in the land whilst writing all the articles about Gibraltar himself under the watchful gaze of the Tsar of Tourism. That is the only reason I gave those people the time of day. They have now quoted me as saying that Roger was writing and promoting the articles himself. They completely contradict themselves at the end of the paragraph, which is a hell of a lot closer to what I actually said, but...whatever, they can't write.*
*For the record, no. No I did not say that. Yes, I have issues. You know what? I asked the community about them and they shrugged their shoulders and said: "Eh, you're wrong." That's that then. If there are further discussions about what I feel are relevant issues, then I'll join them in a manner that AGF, because that is the Wikipedian way. People can be wrong, right or somewhere in between but thorough, open and civil discussion from both sides is required to help address the situation. (No Wikipediocracy, I don't just mean you, people are talking about this on-wiki too from multiple sides) Hopefully with a view to looking forward and adapting to these situations, whether it's to welcome or deny them.*
*I don't think this has anything to do with Wikimedia UK whatsoever, and I'm sorry you're even having the discussion here. It should've stayed on Wikipedia, where it belongs, and where there are appropriate channels for people to discuss issues of paid editing, COI, impact on the project etc. I'm also sorry to Roger, because differences of opinion regarding on-wiki behaviour should not result in such incivility, or knee-jerk reactions. He added much to WMUK, gave so much of his time and love to help the chapter go forward, and to lose him is a great shame. For my part in that, I can only apologise to Roger and the community.*
*Fiona "* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
To give some idea of how poor the research for the writing is:
"/This article originally and incorrectly referred to Gibraltar as an island. It is a peninsula."/
Were they to correct the rest of the errors in the article there would be very little of the original left.
Just as an example:
" Wikimedia U.K. (which controls all Wikipedia platforms in Britain)"
Arguably since there are no Wikipedia platforms in Britain this could be said to be true. But it is misleading or nonsensical at best.
On 20/09/2012 19:25, Richard Symonds wrote:
User:Panyd, who spotted the start of this whole incident on DYK, gave an interview with Slate magazine, which she's been very misquoted in and is a little upset about. She just emailed the UK list explaining her thoughts on all this, so I'm sharing them here:
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org