actually, I've never seen any two of those three in a room together... ++SJ

Well I would say: people are trying to write about wikipedia and do not really care about what they write (it is a "hot theme" actually ... this is shown by many articles that are against Wikipedia or for Wikipedia - most articles are written to be sold - or to become known as a good reporter or whatsoever.

So just take the articles as what they are (ways to make buzz) and go ahead working on the projects without caring too much about that.

Please note that negative articles are not always really negative. People react more to negative news than to positive ones - so having negative news means that more people will look at "that page" mentioned in an article - and if that page is good they will say to themselves "I don't know what this guy has ... it is ok" ... so the negative news has/had a positive effect in the end.

Consider how you react to news ... do you really believe anything or do you have a look at things and then decide?

Just my 2 ct's on this :-)

Ciao, Sabine

David Gerard wrote:

Apparently we're the next Microsoft after Google:

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20051201WikipediaistheNextG...

Good fucking God.

And dig CBS News' way with a headline:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/01/publiceye/entry1092784.shtml

• d.

___________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo http://it.messenger.yahoo.com