On 7/17/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - I think the WP community should keep the press accountable on how Wikipedia is reported. However, I do agree that critcism should be constructive, and not snarky and obnoxious, as comments on this list tend to be.
IMHO, snarky and obnoxious is fine for this list - even if it's publicly readable, it's essentially an internal, private mailing list. That is, statements on it should not be taken to reflect any broader "on record" sentiment. The Wikipedia Signpost is a different matter.
Take the latest [[Ken Lay]] debate. With wire outlets like Reuters, their story gets regurgitated in many different outlets - paper, online, television, radio, etc. The media reports this as evidence that Wikipedia is in trouble. If the story is obviously inaccurate, they should be called on it.
Wikipedia-bashing is becoming more prevalent. The slightly tragic thing is that its quality is obviously increasing greatly with each passing year. However, its increasing popularity means that despite that, the effect of increasing numbers of people coming into contact with its deficiencies is that the general populace thinks it's getting worse. If that makes sense.
Steve