What's disgusting about this story is that many marketers are not familiar with the details of the types of edits BP made and are asking if their behavior was evil, or if Wikipedia is just confusing. King4057 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"On the basis of what has been reported so far, I can see no example of people behaving improperly, though perhaps behaving indiscreetly." Wow. I would not buy a used car from Lord Bell. (Or in case that expression doesn't translate well - I'm staggered by this guy's lack of ethics.) --Chriswaterguytalk02:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one to be surprised by the link, made in the article « Gardner reiterates call to close the gender gap », between the idea of attracting more women and the idea of a rich text editor ? The sentence says : « Gardner told [...] it is necessary for Wikimedia's websites to attract more women. She pressed the idea of a rich text editor to enable those without knowledge of wiki syntax to edit [...] ». If those without knowledge of wiki syntax are everyone, why should we think it could increase the number of women ? I mean it's like saying : To attract women, make things more simple. DeansFA (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that it's actually related to what's stated later in the item, that recruitment efforts will not be focused on one gender. If such efforts attract women editors in anything greater than our current 10% proportions, then it will have a positive effect. PowersT19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the news