http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6017606%255E11869…
The interview is fairly accurate. A few discrepancies between what I
said (or thought I said) and why was reported, but nothing material.
Let me just comment on two paragraphs:
"For example, there are always two or three people
working on
television programs, so we have a lot of coverage there, but then
there are a group of people who are history buffs, specifically on
World War II," he said.
I would say that I actually gave "World War II" buffs as an example of
the type of person who might have comprehensive knowledge of a
particular area, even without formal training. I'm not at all sure
that it's accurate to say that we actually have a "group of" them,
although our WWII coverage is certainly good in places.
"It really depends on who comes in. We have an MIT
(Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) mathematician who works on it almost every
day so we have excellent coverage of mathematical concepts for a
general encyclopedia."
I would say that I actually gave Michael Hardy (a net friend of mine
for many years) as an example of a type of person who might have
comprehensive knowledge in a certain area AND with formal training,
and as an example of the high caliber of credentials some of our
contributors have. There's no question that his contributions in the
math area are good, but the way this is written, it makes him seem
responsible for the whole math section, which isn't really fair to
many others.
Anyhow, it's a good article!
--Jimbo