I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit" "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end." Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? Carcharoth