On Dec 3, 2007 10:20 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, that was a less than NPOV little hit piece. Did they even bother asking anyone for an opinion who didn't have a negative opinion of the whole thing?
This piece reads so badly I'm almost inclined to wonder if the primary source wasn't some very strongly anti-Durova editor. But of course that couldn't happen because editors who frown on secrecy would never try to do that, nor try to use a newspaper to get their way. Frak'n ridiculous.
To call The Register a newspaper is quite a stretch (even if they are, technically). Their business model is to piss off as many people as possible in order to increase page views and ad revenue. They've found that Wikipedians get pissed off quite frequently, and decided to go with it on a regular basis.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/jimmy_wales_shot_dead_says_wikipedia... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/wikipedia_otrs_volunteers/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/wikipedia_fraud/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/20/wikipedia_aphrodites_araldite/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/18/wales_sanger_interviews/