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_review&diff=58518&oldid=58516
>
> 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?

(Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...)