QUOTE(Theanima @ Wed 28th April 2010, 9:07am)
E.g. "The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography" then "Wikimedia has quite a bit of pornography on it and they had no idea." How can they "knowingly distribute" something they have no idea they have?
I noticed that too, of course... It's weird, actually. In paragraph 2 they say, "Larry Sanger, who left Wikipedia in 2002, said Wikimedia Commons, the parent company of Wiki products including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote..." which implies that they don't even know what Commons is, much less the actual nature of the interrelationship between the various WMF-owned domains.
And yet, a few paragraphs later, there's this:
QUOTE
"I wasn’t shocked that it was online, but I was shocked that it was on a Wikimedia Foundation site that purports to be a reference site," said Sanger... (snip) ... (Wikimedia Commons is owned and hosted by the California-based Wikimedia Foundation.)
...Which implies that maybe they do at least know that Commons isn't a "company," much less the "parent company of Wikipedia." Maybe they shouldn't be taken to task so much for not understanding the domain interrelationships, which are somewhat confusing for most people (and bearing in mind that Fox News doesn't really do journalism in the traditional sense, more like advocacy and propaganda).