I still think it highlights a problem with being over reliant on such outlets as "reliable". My own "original research" has been that journalists often get the gist right but the details wrong. No solutions, just pointing it out.
On 4/30/08, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/30 Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com:
"Again, the district asked Wikipedia staff to remove the message, and they complied, even placing a block on the page that bars postings from unidentified e-mail addresses."
It's amazing to me how many journalists don't understand something as simple as page protection -- which they could fully understand after, uhm, two seconds on Google?
And when have we relied on email addresses for anything but
Special:EmailUser?
On the other hand, it pretty much explains it.. They got the details of the mechanism wrong, but autoconfirmation is a bit confusing for our own users much less anyone else, and the gist of it - some sort of block was applied which limited what casual visitors could do - came across fine.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l