The DT are reporting that Wikimedia UK has been "barred from processing donations":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-fa...
Can we get this error corrected ASAP? It's also in the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia.
(I haven't yet read all of the article)
We are on to it.
On 3 October 2012 10:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The DT are reporting that Wikimedia UK has been "barred from processing donations":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-fa...
Can we get this error corrected ASAP? It's also in the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia.
(I haven't yet read all of the article)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-fa...
Bit long?
bit.ly has three saves already!
Gordo
I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far better than most media articles!
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
The DT are reporting that Wikimedia UK has been "barred from processing donations":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-fa...
Can we get this error corrected ASAP? It's also in the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia.
(I haven't yet read all of the article)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
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.
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
On 3 October 2012 12:16, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
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. ;-)
I think it is implicit that "donations from Wikipedia visitors" means "donations from Wikipedia visitors that are a direct result of them visiting Wikipedia". No-one is going to expect us to quiz every donor and turn them away if they say they once read a Wikipedia article!
Fae,
If I were you I would complain to the Telegraph about the words "and posted “highly inappropriate” links in relation to explicit material on Wikipedia." especially as they didn't even weasel that with an allegedly.
I may be missing something, but as far as I'm aware that is purely a smear. The full quote is,
"The controversy is the second to rock Wikimedia UK in recent months. In August the chair of the charity’s board of trustees, Ashley van Haeften, was forced to resign after The Telegraph reported he had been banned from editing Wikipedia for “numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies”.
He allegedly mounted personal attacks and posted “highly inappropriate” links in relation to explicit material on Wikipedia. Although he resigned as chair, Mr van Haeften remains on Wikimedia UK’s board of trustees"
Surely this gives you something you could take to the press complaints commission or even further. In your shoes I'd be asking for damages.
Jonathan
On 3 October 2012 10:29, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The DT are reporting that Wikimedia UK has been "barred from processing donations":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-fa...
Can we get this error corrected ASAP? It's also in the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia.
(I haven't yet read all of the article)
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org