Durova wrote: > Tough situation. Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that > the background got presented like that. It looks like the reporter didn't > fully understand. The Mail understands well enough, I guess, that (a) editing under a pseudonym is OK, and (b) editing [[David Cameron]] is OK even if you are a Labour party member. So "caught altering David Cameron's Wikipedia entry" certainly misleads as to where the problem lies. "Although the alterations were not inaccurate or overtly critical, many were unfavourable." Yes, but were they or were they not "from a neutral point of view"? Pah. Reporters know that difference, if they care to. I'm glad I generally don't have to read this stuff.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
