I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far
better than most media articles!
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
The DT are reporting that Wikimedia UK has been barred from
processing donations:
On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far
better than most media articles!
The main body of the article is very good. The summary at the top is
simplified to the point of being
On 3 Oct 2012, at 12:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote:
I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far
better than most media articles!
The main body of the article is very
On 3 October 2012 12:16, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Of course, that still wouldn't be right - 'through banners on Wikipedia'
would be more accurate. Getting media coverage 100% accurate is difficult (if
only they used wikis…) - sometimes inaccuracies just have to be
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9581813/Wikipedia-charity-faces-investigation-over-trustee-conflict-of-interest.html
Bit long?
bit.ly has three saves already!
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
