On 1 July 2014 22:22, Michael Peel <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? >
Well, the attitude that argument from authority is by itself unconvincing is pretty well entrenched around here. > > (Please don't disregard my comment about tl;dr...) > > Not understanding. Mike, if this is for me, please explain offlist. Charles
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
