On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)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.