This statement is totally incorrect:
Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling.
I am pretty new to Wikipedia editing but have obviously used it for a long time before. Wikipedia has some reliability issues which is why it's discouraged in schools etc. but it definitely does not have a reputation for dishonesty & indecency. I am no Wikipedia die hard fan, but I enjoy using it & it has proved an invaluable resource many many times. In the wider public, it is viewed as a respectable & accurate encyclopedia, with some issues directly related to the fact that anyone can edit it. Mr Sanger-I feel I am very neutral in this debate, having no real opinion, I also don't really care who "wins", because that's what it is all about. I just think this is a stupid thing to keep going on at, all replies so far have agreed with you that Jimmy did wrong & should probably apologise or set the record straight. Your constant gibes at Wikipedia serve no purpose except to turn many neutral editors who are here & would probably be happy to help get a NPOV, against you. Please stop this pointless, yes I'll say it again, pointless, business for the good of everyone.
Phew, let that off, apologise if I offended anyone, just want to stop this rubbish.
On 09/04/2009 19:57, Larry Sanger wrote:
Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling.