If we did do anything regarding these press coverages, I think our actions were very successful. The reports described Wikipedia's working mechanism with great factual accuracy, which isn't every day. On Apr 28, 2011 11:39 PM, "Fae" <[email protected]> wrote: > This story has run in several newspapers today (Thursday) and shows > that Wikipedia has processes that can protect articles (which most of > the public would be unaware of) and that prompt action is taken when > verifiability or legal issues are outstanding. > > * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/8479272/Wikipedia-users-name-celebrities-with-gagging-orders.html > * http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862006-wikipedia-names-super-injunction-celebrities > * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1381487/Wikipedia-names-4-UK-celebrities-sex-scandal-super-injunctions.html > * http://www.techdigest.tv/2011/04/superinjunction.html > > I would be interested to know if any other members have opinions on > how well the press interest was handled by WM-UK and whether we would > have been better off saying more, less or putting our case more fully > on the WM-UK blog http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk ? > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
