[Wikimediauk-l] Long Term Support (Wheezy)
I was very pleased to find this in the release notes for Mediawiki 1.20 getting the Mediawiki message out there with the huge Linux userbase. *** We're working closely with Linux distributors to make sure that the MediaWiki bundled in Linux is something that we feel more comfortable supporting. In this vein, MediaWiki 1.19 is being targeted for long term support. Since Debian (the Linux distribution with the longest release cycle) has a two year cycle between each freeze and we've gotten MediaWiki 1.19 into Wheezy, we'll support MW 1.19 for the next two years. (Thank you especially to MediaWiki developer Platonides for his help in working with the Debian developers.) *** Tempted to copy edit that statement though... we've gotten MediaWiki 1.19 into Wheezy... :-) Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media training available for volunteers
Hello everyone, I have one space remaining for this. If you'd like to take part please do let me know soon. Thank you, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:17, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Thank you for the clarification. There are no plans to introduce a group known as accredited spokespeople or anything like that. As I say, not attending won't mean we'll ask you not to speak with the media - I'm not looking to restrict anyone's voluntary activities, but support them. That said, I do think it is useful for anyone who speaks with the media who isn't trained to seriously consider taking advantage of this opportunity if they can. From my point of view, it's obviously better and more effective for those dealing with the media to be trained - but it isn't a requirement. Thanks, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:11, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: AIUI, only accredited trainers will be eligible to undertake certain Wikimedia-UK training projects I wanted to be clear (as I suspect is sensibly the case) that no similar restriction for accredited spokespeople would operate. Cheers, A. On 31 October 2012 16:57, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi Andy, Thank you for your email. I'm glad you like the look of the course. I designed it with the training provider to meet the needs of volunteers who may speak with the media from time to time because of their programming work. I'm not sure what you mean regarding accreditation for trainers I'm afraid - could you clarify please? Not attending won't prevent a volunteer from speaking with the media. It's about empowerment, not restriction. Attending will enhance the skills and confidence of volunteers in dealing with the media, and make them more effective in their use of the media and promotion of their work. Of course, the office is here to support volunteers in that as well! I do hope this helps but am happy to answer any other questions people may have. Do please remember that places are limited. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 31 October 2012 16:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 31 October 2012 16:40, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I just wanted to remind you of the availability of media training for our volunteers who may come into contact with members of the press. Please do take a look and, if you;re interested, please do let me know. The course outlined looks like a very good one. I'm already comfortable with speaking to the media; I've had similar training in my past professional life, and a fair amount of experience (for Wikimedia and elsewhere), so I wouldn't want to take up a p\ace that would surely be of more benefit to others, Please can you confirm that not attending won't prejudice a community member from being put forward to speak to the media (c/f accreditation for trainers)? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media training available for volunteers
Sgn me up Stevie! On 13 November 2012 09:53, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Hello everyone, I have one space remaining for this. If you'd like to take part please do let me know soon. Thank you, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:17, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Thank you for the clarification. There are no plans to introduce a group known as accredited spokespeople or anything like that. As I say, not attending won't mean we'll ask you not to speak with the media - I'm not looking to restrict anyone's voluntary activities, but support them. That said, I do think it is useful for anyone who speaks with the media who isn't trained to seriously consider taking advantage of this opportunity if they can. From my point of view, it's obviously better and more effective for those dealing with the media to be trained - but it isn't a requirement. Thanks, Stevie On 31 October 2012 17:11, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: AIUI, only accredited trainers will be eligible to undertake certain Wikimedia-UK training projects I wanted to be clear (as I suspect is sensibly the case) that no similar restriction for accredited spokespeople would operate. Cheers, A. On 31 October 2012 16:57, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi Andy, Thank you for your email. I'm glad you like the look of the course. I designed it with the training provider to meet the needs of volunteers who may speak with the media from time to time because of their programming work. I'm not sure what you mean regarding accreditation for trainers I'm afraid - could you clarify please? Not attending won't prevent a volunteer from speaking with the media. It's about empowerment, not restriction. Attending will enhance the skills and confidence of volunteers in dealing with the media, and make them more effective in their use of the media and promotion of their work. Of course, the office is here to support volunteers in that as well! I do hope this helps but am happy to answer any other questions people may have. Do please remember that places are limited. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 31 October 2012 16:50, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 31 October 2012 16:40, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I just wanted to remind you of the availability of media training for our volunteers who may come into contact with members of the press. Please do take a look and, if you;re interested, please do let me know. The course outlined looks like a very good one. I'm already comfortable with speaking to the media; I've had similar training in my past professional life, and a fair amount of experience (for Wikimedia and elsewhere), so I wouldn't want to take up a p\ace that would surely be of more benefit to others, Please can you confirm that not attending won't prejudice a community member from being put forward to speak to the media (c/f accreditation for trainers)? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=379790641oldid=377970394 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=392056591oldid=391203395 I'd encourage you to post a message on the article talk page pointing towards the diff that you link to, so that the editors that are currently looking at that article are aware of it. Thanks, Mike On 13 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If this diff was the change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=482553850oldid=481482592 When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now. Andreas On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making. Thanks, Stevie On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia. You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below. I wouldn't say the Telegraph republished the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly also ran the story. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=379790641oldid=377970394 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=392056591oldid=391203395 I'd encourage you to post a message on the article talk page pointing towards the diff that you link to, so that the editors that are currently looking at that article are aware of it. Thanks, Mike Thanks Mike. Will do. Andreas On 13 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If this diff was the change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanovdiff=482553850oldid=481482592 When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now. Andreas On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making. Thanks, Stevie On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia. You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below. I wouldn't say the Telegraph republished the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly also ran the story. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
On 13 November 2012 20:59, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be: BTW - if you can get a copy of yesterday's Times, you should. That article has some of the best explanation for the general public of how to work a Wikipedia history tab that I've ever seen. (It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.) 0 d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: (It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.) I completely agree. It's very scary that the Daily Mail is more accessible than the Times on the internet right now. :-? Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
Along with MSN News, the Daily Mail is in fact the most read news source in the English speaking world, according to this article: http://www.nouse.co.uk/2012/11/12/the-daily-mail-lolcats-with-a-masthead/ I don't know whether that is just online, or the combined number of online and print readers. In terms of print circulation, the Daily Mail is no. 2 in the UK (after The Sun), with close to 2 million copies sold. The Mail Online website overtook the New York Times website in January of this year to become the most read newspaper website. Andreas On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: (It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.) I completely agree. It's very scary that the Daily Mail is more accessible than the Times on the internet right now. :-? Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
Hi all, I found this a bit comical: http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/ They don't get it that the COI policy affects everyone. They think that just because they want people to pay them to change the articles they should be allowed to do so! Ingham added that too many of the people who edit Wikipedia still do not understand PR. Too many of them continue to have the knee-jerk reaction that information from a PR professional must intrinsically be wrong. Ingham urged Wikipedia to implement radical reform to its editing process. Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that they do not understand you. No-one is saying their information is intrinsically wrong, just that they should not edit articles relating to their clients. all the best Leuthe ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, fab...@unpopular.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I found this a bit comical: http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/ They don't get it that the COI policy affects everyone. They think that just because they want people to pay them to change the articles they should be allowed to do so! Ingham added that ‘too many of the people who edit Wikipedia still do not understand PR’. ‘Too many of them continue to have the knee-jerk reaction that information from a PR professional must intrinsically be wrong.’ Ingham urged Wikipedia to implement ‘radical reform’ to its editing process. Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that they do not understand you. No-one is saying their information is intrinsically wrong, just that they should not edit articles relating to their clients. all the best Leuthe That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_usoldid=513214834 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problemoldid=512211633 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject)oldid=499179529 It is now vastly improved – Oliver (Ironholds) did some fantastic work on it in October, and cut out some subpages altogether – but until last month, it was a daunting task just to locate the OTRS e-mail, and on the way there you passed a prominent invitation to just Fix it yourself. Another problem is that OTRS can sometimes take weeks to reply. One very distressed BLP subject told me it was four weeks before he heard back. Also see this comment by Jclemens: I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COIdiff=479583654oldid=479583284 PR people are told to leave messages on article talk pages. Problem is, these are routinely ignored for days, weeks or forever. Even if they're not, often the only editors attending are those responsible for the state of the article that caused the complaint in the first place. On Jimbo's talk page someone just suggested using the COI noticeboard as a default location for PR people to raise concerns. I think that could work: there are regulars attending to that noticeboard, and complaints there would get outside eyes on the perceived problem, and an answer within a reasonable time frame. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
Dear Andreas Francis Ingham is DG of the PRCA. Its fee-paying members include RLM Finsbury (among other WPP companies), so, ultimately, it contributes to his salary. Possible COI? Paul ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Paul Wilkinson paul.wilkin...@pwcom.co.uk wrote: Dear Andreas Francis Ingham is DG of the PRCA. Its fee-paying members include RLM Finsbury (among other WPP companies), so, ultimately, it contributes to his salary. Possible COI? Paul Come on, you are a CIPR fellow, and CIPR and PRCA are rival bodies. In fact, Ingham used to be the CIPR's assistant director, until he defected to the PRCA. Shall I make an ad-hominem comment based on your COI too? Yes, Finsbury is one of several hundred members of PRCA. Even so Ingham did not condone their behaviour. And what he says about the poor perception of PR professionals is the same thing CIPR have said (and according to Wikipedia, it's one thing CIPR and PRCA agree on, and have collaborated on). The question is not, does the man have a COI; the question is, Is there merit in what he says? And there is. Oliver's revamp of the Contact Us pages has made a huge difference, because previously, PR professionals would pass three invitations to fix the article themselves before they would come to the OTRS e-mail address. But there is still room for improvement. OTRS e-mails should be responded to the same day, not up to four weeks later. Is anyone collecting data on how quickly OTRS mails are responded to? Are those data public? If not, there is another potential area for improvement. PR professionals could be invited to post to the COI noticeboard AND the article talk page at the same time (leaving a link on the article talk page to the COIN discussion), so they get a prompt response. There should be a discussion whether PR professionals should be forbidden or encouraged to contribute to COI noticeboard queries where they do not have a COI themselves beyond being PR professionals too. These are some ideas. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 November 2012 22:29, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze: Bollocks. The case is about Finsbury removing well-referenced information to attempt to cleanse a client's entry. You are stretching beyond sanity to paint their actions as in any way reasonably acceptable. - d. You may have noticed that I don't like the idea of Usmanov's biography being sanitised, and posted on its talk page to that effect. But this is a completely different matter from the way Wikipedia handles complaints. Wikipedia gets anonymous contributions that spin just as well as the best PR companies, only negatively, and there must be a way for justifiably aggrieved biography subjects to get some satisfaction. Francis Ingham, the guy who made that comment about Wikipedia's cumbersome and opaque complaints system, is the PRCA director-general, and he does not work for Finsbury as far as I know. And it so happens I and Tom Morris here for example said exactly the same thing about the complaints system until a few weeks ago – until Oliver revamped the whole thing. That still doesn't mean every OTRS e-mail will get a prompt reply, but it's a step in the right direction. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
