New subject: Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

8 Jun 2009

---- "AGK" &lt;wikiagk(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: 
...
  From: "AGK" &lt;wikiagk(a)googlemail.com&gt; 
 To: "English Wikipedia" &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 
 Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 15:24:30 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal 
 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case 

 To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they 
 know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the 
 awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)   
 The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and 
 it's harming our public image.  
Gross inaccuracies that harm our public image? 

Not that I can see. Some of the details are wrong - number of ArbCom cases for instance,
but that's pretty irrelevant to the story or indeed our reputation. Likewise with the
relationship between Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. 

The Daily Mail will spin the story as they see fit. What we might disagree with is the
editorialising, which we can do little about, not any errors of fact. 

The harm to our public image comes from the fact that a senior trusted user has managed to
deceive Wikipedia over a number of years and our systems were inadequate to deal with
this. 

I hope there will be an honest debate in Wikipedia about how we can make sure this
doesn't happen again. Coming not that long after the Essjay controversy, requiring
trusted users to verify their identities seems like a sensible response. 

Andrew 