On 3 Oct 2012, at 12:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far better than most media articles!
The main body of the article is very good. The summary at the top is simplified to the point of being inaccurate. The main article specifically talks about donations from Wikipedia visitors (which is an accurate description), while the summary just says "donations", which is obviously incorrect. The office have an excellent track record of getting these kinds of things fixed - it shouldn't take long to get them to add "from Wikipedia vistors" to the summary.
Of course, that still wouldn't be right - 'through banners on Wikipedia' would be more accurate. Getting media coverage 100% accurate is difficult (if only they used wikis…) - sometimes inaccuracies just have to be lived with, as grating as that is to any Wikimedian's soul. ;-)
Thanks, Mike