It doesn't surprise me. There is also a general issue of conflict of
interest since a number of UK civil servants routinely update
information about their departments on Wikipedia. I contacted UK Trade
and Industry on behalf of Wikiproject spam about this a while back (I
was an independent director of the DTI, then BERR at the time). See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Trade_%26_Investment&action=history
Stating the reorganisation was one thing but there was lots of links
and puff piece about how wonderful they were. Wikipedia is viewed as
trendy and cool in most of the government with politicians being more
cautious than professionals.

Boz

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "An individual wanted to learn details of the Chiefs of Defence
> Staff. He went to the authoritative source and sent a freedom of
> information request to the MOD. This week, the MOD responded by
> suggesting that Wikipedia is the most authoritative source of
> information on its staff..."
>
>
> http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/2009/02/factcheck_n_sources.html
>
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> gordon.j...@pobox.com///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to