> > Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? Not that I can see. Some of > the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance, but that's > pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the > relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation.
(Belated reply to Andrew's post of one day ago.) The article certainly doesn't give a positive impression of us. It's quite clear to me that there are inaccuracies and that the article harms our public image. Wikipedia gets quite enough stick for being "totally unreliable" (and such) without the Mail spreading incorrect information about how we operate. AGK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
