On Dec 9, 2007 10:24 PM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 8:10 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are
not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The second bit of that may be true (there are a lot of idiots in the world), but the first part simply isn't. The Register is full of nonsense. I once responded to one of their articles on Wikipedia and they basically picked individual words from my comment and put them together (with lots of "..." inbetween) to make it seem that I'd said something very different to what I actually said. That is *not* reputable journalism.
I think they may very well be a decent journalistic source in certain areas - some of their tech reporting is quite good - but when it comes to Wikipedia, they haven't got a good track record (to say the least). People who only know of the Register from its reporting in general technology may not be aware of its shadier handling of Wikipedia.
I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been some sort of official
response to these articles yet; the first one was five days ago and the second was three days ago, with Seth Finkelstein's story in between. Most media will send advance copies to the subjects of their articles in order to permit prompt response; given that Jimmy was already in the UK at the time, I would have expected some sort of response while he was there.
Risker