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 &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey <https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey> http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/

On 3 Oct 2012, at 12:12, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. ;-) Thanks, Mike

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 &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: