Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Daily Mail again

Re "why blacklist the Daily Mail not even worse sources? The Daily Mail is a very long way from being the first source deprecated by the Wikipedia community, it isn't even in the most deprecated category of sources, that would be ones that go into the spamfilter and are automatically rejected. If

[Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

Dear all Firstly, many thanks to those of you who have said you would consider responding to Wikimedia press enquiries in future, and I will be emailing more about that within the next few days - particularly off the back of the Media Handling and Crisis Communications course I've been on for the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/03/peking-duk-fan-infiltrates-backstage-by-fooling-security-guard-with-wikipedia-edit

[Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK policy updates - consultation

Dear all Many thanks to those of you who have inputted into the two policies I circulated earlier this year for community consultation (about Diversity and Safeguarding). I'm in the process of revising those draft policies - according to the suggestions that have been made - for board review in Ma

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

"It goes to show, said Hyde, “never trust Wikipedia”." Eh, naw pal. It goes to show that your security firm need an utter bollocking. (I used to work in music venue management, for 2 big UK venue groups) People try and fool their way backstage with all kinds of stuff, and some of it is benig

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

Totally agree Sara! But given that the BBC are running with this as a 'story', it would be great if we could also educate people a bit about how Wikipedia works ;) On 15 February 2017 at 13:45, Sara Thomas wrote: > *"**It goes to show, said Hyde, “never trust Wikipedia”."* > > > Eh, naw pal. I

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

See there you go, being all logical [😉] S From: Wikimediauk-l on behalf of Lucy Crompton-Reid Sent: 15 February 2017 14:03 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism Totally agree Sara! But

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

On 15 February 2017 at 11:25, Lucy Crompton-Reid wrote: > The article is The Sherlocks and the edit in question was made on 10th > February at 8.28pm and reverted by another editor at 4.15pm the following > day. And the story first appeared in the Daily Mail. I wondered how long that would take

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

Thanks Andy! On 15 February 2017 at 15:08, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 15 February 2017 at 11:25, Lucy Crompton-Reid > wrote: > > > The article is The Sherlocks and the edit in question was made on 10th > > February at 8.28pm and reverted by another editor at 4.15pm the following > > day. > > And

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Media enquiry from the BBC re editing/vandalism

On 15 February 2017 at 15:08, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> The article is The Sherlocks There have been a lot of recent edits with people adding their or other names. At my request, it has been semi-protected (no edits by IPs or new accounts) for three days. This may need to be extended if the story

[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Wikidata] WikiFactMine Project is Advertising for a Wikimedian in Residence

Dear all, There is a 6 month Wikimedian in Residence role, or perhaps in this case Wikidatan in Residence coming up, at least 50% based in Cambridge. WSC -- Forwarded message -- From: Thomas Arrow Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:00 AM Subject: [Wikidata] WikiFactMine Project is Ad