[Foundation-l] Most read US newpaper blasts Wikipedia

Thu Dec 1 13:11:26 UTC 2005

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Poe, Marshall wrote:

> There is a more general consideration, tho: repeated notices in the
> *trusted* print press to the effect that WP is not trustworthy will
> drive people away.  WP's reputation is on the line. So WP has both good
> legal and practical reasons to institute some sort of (let me just say
> it) formal editorial control over quality.

<cough> It isn't as though everyone is tiptoeing around that phrase.

There are solutions to improving WP's quality - particularly the
quality of content seen by 99% of our readers and all of our serious
mirrors - that are at once more effective and less controversial than 
'formal editorial control'.

SJ