Mailing List Archive

On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:13:36PM +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> To take an example, there were made up quotes in my GWN interview,
> however, nothing of great harm. I believe that time it was a case of
> attempting to make it more fun, it is however a worrying trend.

One of my blog entries was also over-interpreted and included in the
GWN without consulting me first, causing a mail storm in my inbox from
angry users of xsupplicant:

http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/brix/2005/11/25/wpa_supplicant_vs_xsupplicant

Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:13:36PM +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
>> To take an example, there were made up quotes in my GWN interview,
>> however, nothing of great harm. I believe that time it was a case of
>> attempting to make it more fun, it is however a worrying trend.
>
> One of my blog entries was also over-interpreted and included in the
> GWN without consulting me first, causing a mail storm in my inbox from
> angry users of xsupplicant:

If errors in the GWN result in large numbers of emails directly to you
rather than to the GWN, maybe the developer's email link shouldn't be
included in articles and feedback should instead be linked to gwn-feedback.

The GWN is a fairly independent publication, so I think it should be
free to make its own mistakes as long as it retains journalistic
integrity. But perhaps it could benefit from some sort of advisory board
of Gentoo developers/staff?

Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:13:36PM +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
>>
>>>To take an example, there were made up quotes in my GWN interview,
>>>however, nothing of great harm. I believe that time it was a case of
>>>attempting to make it more fun, it is however a worrying trend.
>>
>>One of my blog entries was also over-interpreted and included in the
>>GWN without consulting me first, causing a mail storm in my inbox from
>>angry users of xsupplicant:
>
>
> If errors in the GWN result in large numbers of emails directly to you
> rather than to the GWN, maybe the developer's email link shouldn't be
> included in articles and feedback should instead be linked to gwn-feedback.
>
> The GWN is a fairly independent publication, so I think it should be
> free to make its own mistakes as long as it retains journalistic
> integrity. But perhaps it could benefit from some sort of advisory board
> of Gentoo developers/staff?

Er the GWN is currently a Gentoo Project.

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/pr/gwn.xml

Although apparently the project page needs updating ;)

>
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Saturday 10 June 2006 10:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:56:48 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
> | > When someone contacts GWN to have
> | > something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to
> | > at least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for some reason they
> | > choose not to honour the corrections or post a retraction (although
> | > refusing to publish corrections is extremely insulting to those
> | > wronged).
> |
> | The reason for that is that the GWN is mostly sent out by mail. This
> | makes corrections a bit more difficult, but I think having a sane
> | policy for that would be helpful.
>
> Publish a 'corrections' section in the next edition?

and fix the original
-mike