---- "AGK" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "AGK" <[email protected]> > > > 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.
I agree that the article gives a very bad impression of us and contains a lot of inaccuracies. However, I don't think it's the inaccuracies that give the bad impression - I'm afraid it's the underlying story which is essentially true. Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
