I answered the questions guardedly as you can probably tell :) I think I was
fairly represented in the article as you can see below.
Re general stuff, part of my reply was: I don't agree with the findings as
a general rule for Wikipedia although it may apply to the participants in
some of
On 2009-May-24 16:32:34 +1000, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed - the danger is that someone browsing through
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Young_women (not a great look for
how wikimedia feels about young women)
To be fair, there's also
2009/5/24 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com:
see
http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/parents-warned-of-wikiporn-risk/2009/05/23/1242498976065.html
Unfortunately it's not a good news one, dealing with 'Wikiporn risk' - but I
think a 'well done' to brianna for sounding wise and
What you did get quoted as saying was good (as PrivateMusings said), and it
is a shame that what you just described was cut ou - especially the bit
about critical evaluation. It really is unfortunate that they can make a
news item about one parent who happens to stumble upon vandalism in an
see
http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/parents-warned-of-wikiporn-risk/2009/05/23/1242498976065.html
Unfortunately it's not a good news one, dealing with 'Wikiporn risk' - but I
think a 'well done' to brianna for sounding wise and sensible in a difficult
situation is due :-)
The worry is
