QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 31st July 2011, 8:06pm)
Did I leave out anything significant? I'm here for article's benefit.
It's what you put in that's the problem, not what you left out. Using that article simply to source the fact that ED.ch is back online would hardly be problematic even in an actual encyclopedia, but all you're doing with the other stuff is repeating rumor and innuendo - the fact that "it has been reported..." as such doesn't make it less so. In effect, you're doing what Fox News does when they can't produce evidence for "terror babies" and "death panels" and what-not - they report on the rumor, and after a day or two, conveniently forget to mention that it was a rumor.
Admittedly, if Fox News were doing that stuff to promote responsible governance and sound economic policy, most people (including myself) probably wouldn't complain. The same probably applies to you too, though I can't think of anything about ED.ch that's sound or responsible... (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
I do wonder if the new incarnation will be as much of a useful "safety valve" service to WP as the old one was. I suspect it won't be, which is probably good in general, but probably not good for people (living or dead) who are the subjects of ED.ch articles.
Meanwhile, all the fuss over Ryan Cleary and moving servers around has boosted ED.ch's Alexa ranking to where it's now pretty close to what ED.com's was.