On 3 Oct 2012, at 12:12, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey <andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far >> better than most media articles! > > The main body of the article is very good. The summary at the top is > simplified to the point of being inaccurate. The main article > specifically talks about donations from Wikipedia visitors (which is > an accurate description), while the summary just says "donations", > which is obviously incorrect. The office have an excellent track > record of getting these kinds of things fixed - it shouldn't take long > to get them to add "from Wikipedia vistors" to the summary. Of course, that still wouldn't be right - 'through banners on Wikipedia' would be more accurate. Getting media coverage 100% accurate is difficult (if only they used wikis…) - sometimes inaccuracies just have to be lived with, as grating as that is to any Wikimedian's soul. ;-) Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
