Thank you for linking to my blog post about my experience editing a Wikipedia article. However, I think it's worth mentioning that I am not a professional newspaper editor but, as the post makes clear, a professional encyclopedia editor. And while I have written two freelance book reviews for the San Francisco Chronicle, that hardly qualifies me to be "a former newspaper writer for the San Francisco Chronicle." It would make more sense to identify me as the current editor of the online project Encyclopedia Virginia. Finally, I am quoted here as describing the experience of Wikipedia editing as being "almost more like an online game." Again, as my blog post makes clear, this is not me speaking, but a Wikipedia employee, as quoted by Nicholson Baker in his article "The Charms of Wikipedia" in the New York Review of Books. I do appreciate the link, but the irony of these mistakes doesn't serve Wikipedia's mission—a mission I fully endorse, by the way—very well. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had already spotted the errors (I had it correct in an earlier version). It's pre-publication, (edition is for tuesday), so it's not that bad, and I'll make sure it's sorted out before tuesday. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding positively persnickety, the change still has me identified as "a former newspaper writer for the San Francisco Chronicle." This implies either that a) I was employed by the Chronicle, which is not true, or b) I had some kind of ongoing relationship that has since changed, hence the "former," which also is untrue. Rather, I am the current editor of Encyclopedia Virginia, an online project of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and the University of Virginia. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry. I went off the "about this blog" page, and assumed you edited the San Fran paper. I'll get to work right away fixing them. I was writing this article after 2000 local time last night. Again, this is a mistake, and I will make sure this does not occur again. Regards -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
