On 1 Jul 2014, at 22:11, Charles Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1 July 2014 21:57, Michael Peel <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this would be more factually accurate: > https://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikimedian_in_Residence_2014_review&diff=58518&oldid=58516 > > Maybe. Isn't that the point I asked about on a previous occasion? > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2014-April/012066.html > > As you said there, "Some of the history's never been recorded." So, editing > it into a report? > > > You may well think this is more factually accurate, and who knows, you may be > right. Does seem to be fighting the battles of a previous war, though, with a > source of iffy reliability. Not quite sure who this "proxy war" is against. > Frankly, there are reporting requirements on chapters, and so significant > matters should be documented. ... and that's a good example of why I now have zero motivation to comment on anything that WMUK does nowadays. I should really have said "publicly recorded". I just want to see what actually happened just a few years being properly described. But it feels like a battle to do that - so why should I bother? (Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...) Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
