On 1 July 2014 22:22, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 1 Jul 2014, at 22:11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 1 July 2014 21:57, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote: I think this would be more factually accurate:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_revi...
Maybe. Isn't that the point I asked about on a previous occasion?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-April/012066.html
As you said there, "Some of the history's never been recorded." So,
editing it into a report?
You may well think this is more factually accurate, and who knows, you
may be right. Does seem to be fighting the battles of a previous war, though, with a source of iffy reliability. Not quite sure who this "proxy war" is against. Frankly, there are reporting requirements on chapters, and so significant matters should be documented.
... and that's a good example of why I now have zero motivation to comment on anything that WMUK does nowadays. I should really have said "publicly recorded". I just want to see what actually happened just a few years being properly described. But it feels like a battle to do that - so why should I bother?
Well, the attitude that argument from authority is by itself unconvincing is pretty well entrenched around here.
(Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...)
Not understanding. Mike, if this is for me, please explain offlist.
Charles