http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6017606%255E11869,...

The interview is fairly accurate. A few discrepancies between what I said (or thought I said) and why was reported, but nothing material.

Let me just comment on two paragraphs:

"For example, there are always two or three people working on television programs, so we have a lot of coverage there, but then there are a group of people who are history buffs, specifically on World War II," he said.

I would say that I actually gave "World War II" buffs as an example of the type of person who might have comprehensive knowledge of a particular area, even without formal training. I'm not at all sure that it's accurate to say that we actually have a "group of" them, although our WWII coverage is certainly good in places.

"It really depends on who comes in. We have an MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) mathematician who works on it almost every day so we have excellent coverage of mathematical concepts for a general encyclopedia."

I would say that I actually gave Michael Hardy (a net friend of mine for many years) as an example of a type of person who might have comprehensive knowledge in a certain area AND with formal training, and as an example of the high caliber of credentials some of our contributors have. There's no question that his contributions in the math area are good, but the way this is written, it makes him seem responsible for the whole math section, which isn't really fair to many others.

Anyhow, it's a good article!

--Jimbo