Reading the Times article now, it's *glowingly* positive. The leader inside front page describes CRUK's decision to work with us as "admirable" and says that with their help, WP can provide the "best information available" to the public while giving other professionals an overview of knowledge.
A double page spread (pp. 14-15) gives some overview stats on different cancers, but the main text quotes Henry Scowcroft and Kate Arnold of CRUK and me as a Wikimedia volunteer. Henry praises WP as a source of scientific information but identifies areas that were improved by CRUK during the workshop. Henry says that his additions have not been disrupted, except for a fixed typo. Roswyn Hakesley-Brown of the Patients Association is quoted saying that Wikipedia has a part to play in informing the public, but not as a subsitute for seeing a healthcare professional. The article suggests repeatedly that the event could be a model for other organisations.
A boxed case study interviews a prostate cancer survivor. He recommends both the CRUK site and WP as "extremely helpful" in helping him understand his symptoms and the possible treatments. He says that the knowledge spread through the internet will "save lives".
This is going to be great to use in approaching potential partner organisations.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Martin Poulter wrote:
BBC News (linked from front page and 4th most popular item currently!) Cancer charity to tidy up Wikipedia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12887075
The Times Cancer Research UK to edit information on Wikipedia http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article2971655.ece (NB behind a paywall)
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter