[WikiEN-l] Durova/!! matter now in newspaper.

[Andrew Gray]

On 04/12/2007, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> While I see your point, Ral315, as I pointed out to jossi earlier this
> evening, we have well over 1000  links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right now
> (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's
> some major cleaning up to do.

It's fine.

I love the way that people convince themselves because they don't like
us we get to (or ought to?) juggle logic in order to declare them
unreliable. This is the second time I've seen this approach argued on
this particular case!

So, hum. It has a known editorial voice, one it expresses strongly,
and the way it reports on topics we know a lot about leaves something
to be desired in terms of accuracy.

You know what? The latter part's true for pretty much any publication.
We pick holes in articles discussing us in the most learned or
respected sources; it should be no surprise that the Register is any
different.

So we're left with the editorial voice. They don't like us. Boo-hoo.
Lots of people don't like us, lots of people think we're fundamentally
going about our business in the wrong direction - with varying degrees
of sense behind that - and the way to make this better isn't to start
randomly getting rid of bits of content because of some kind of
presumed subtext.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk