User talk:~Bird~: Difference between revisions

User talk:~Bird~ (edit)

Revision as of 04:13, 28 February 2005

11 bytes added , 28 February 2005

m

no edit summary

~Bird~

5

edits

Revision as of 04:12, 28 February 2005 (edit) ~Bird~ (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 04:13, 28 February 2005 (edit) (undo) ~Bird~ (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Thank you all for your repeated inquiries. Our meetings individually have been productive over these past months. I want to summarize here analysis of the impact of Red Faction activities as some of ~~use~~ have reviewed in detail.		Thank you all for your repeated inquiries. Our meetings individually have been productive over these past months. I want to summarize here analysis of the impact of Red Faction activities that some of us have privately reviewed in detail.

	In short, our message is reaching our audience. Critical comments inserted in Wikipedia have been picked up as the theme of media reports in local, regional and national markets. K-12 teachers have been especially willing to speak out about their skepticism. In 2004 we saw numerous editorials appear in print and on-line questioning the reliability of the document. Trial errors planted in several articles (some of you know which ones) remain uncorrected. Juvenile sophistry remains a persistent tone throughout, with the exception of mundane articles about geographic places, and those stubbed from 100-year-old encyclopedias. Overall, our efforts have promoted more informed consumption of the Wikipedia product.		In short, our message is reaching our audience. Critical comments inserted in Wikipedia have been picked up as the theme of media reports in local, regional and national markets. K-12 teachers have been especially willing to speak out about their skepticism. In 2004 we saw numerous editorials appear in print and on-line questioning the reliability of the document. Trial errors planted in several articles (some of you know which ones) remain uncorrected. Juvenile sophistry remains a persistent tone throughout, with the exception of mundane articles about geographic places, and those stubbed from 100-year-old encyclopedias. Overall, our efforts have promoted more informed consumption of the Wikipedia product.