Media Search:



The room where Obama watched the Bin Laden raid was stripped out of the White House will not be rebuilt at his Chicago library – Yahoo News

White House photographer Pete Souza's iconic photo of President Barack Obama and top officials watching the raid that eventually killed Osama Bin Laden.Pete Souza/The White House via AP

Multiple outlets reported small conference room where Obama watched the Bin Laden room has been preserved.

But the reports about sending it in its entirety to Obama's library in Chicago aren't true, according to an Obama spokesperson.

The removal came amid a massive $50 million renovation of the White House Situation Room complex.

Correction: September 8, 2023 After this story's publication, a spokesperson for the Obama Foundation sent a statement refuting PBS's reporting. "There are no plans for the Situation Room to be rebuilt at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago," Courtney D. Williams, the communications director for the Obama Foundation, said in an email. The original story is below.

The small, secured conference room where President Barack Obama watched history unfold as US forces hunted down Osama Bin Laden will be reassembled in Chicago at his presidential center after it was stripped out of the White House earlier this summer, according to multiple reports.

According to PBS, the room was preserved in its entirety and was sent to Chicago. The decision will easily guarantee that the room will join the list of major and weird inclusions at the sites dedicated to immortalizing modern presidents. For example, Reagan's presidential library includes the Air Force One plane that served him and his successors all the way through President George W. Bush.

Obama White House photographer Pete Souza's photo of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton watching the May 1, 2011 raid is one of the most famous photos of Obama's presidency. Souza's shot was also a rare public look into the Situation Room complex.

The preservation of the room came amid reports about the future of the Situation Room. First started after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Situation Room is actually a series of secured conference rooms where presidents and their top military advisors and aides can discuss classified national security information. Over the summer, the entire complex was shut down as workers completed a massive $50 million renovation of the entire complex. Reporters from multiple outlets were allowed a rare tour of the classified space.

Obama's presidential library previously made waves by moving to exclude the actual "library" part of the presidential center. Unlike the 13 other presidential libraries operated by the National Archives and Records Administration, the Obama Library aims to be a fully digital facility, meaning there will not be a reading room to examine records on the complex's grounds. It's unclear what the plans are for former President Donald Trump's library given that he is still seeking a second term in office.

Traditionally, taxpayers are only responsible for the library portion of what have become massive presidential centers. A former president's foundation, in this case, the Obama Foundation, runs and operates the museum portion that is filled with artifacts loaned to it by the National Archives.

Obama himself has said that he does not want his center to be an "ego" trip focused solely on the past.

"When Michelle and I started talking about the Presidential Center, we were really firm that what we want to do was create something for the future," he said during a 2017 interview after plans for his center were unveiled.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Follow this link:
The room where Obama watched the Bin Laden raid was stripped out of the White House will not be rebuilt at his Chicago library - Yahoo News

Whos Who in the Google Antitrust Trial – The New York Times

Follow live updates from Googles antitrust trial

A trial to determine if Google abused its monopoly in online search, which begins on Tuesday, is set to lay bare how the internet search giant cemented its power, featuring testimony from top tech executives, engineers, economists and academics.

The trial will unfold in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a core group of individuals will command the courtroom and direct the day-to-day legal strategies. Here are the key people to know in U.S. et al. v. Google:

Judge Mehta, who was appointed to the bench in 2014 by President Barack Obama, will referee and decide the case in the nonjury trial.

In more than three years of pretrial hearings, Judge Mehta hasnt tipped his hand on his views of the case. In a proceeding last month, he narrowed the lawsuit by the Justice Department and states while preserving the core argument that Google maintained its monopoly in search through deals with smartphone makers that cut out competitors.

Judge Mehta, 52, was randomly assigned to U.S. et al. v. Google. He may be more familiar with Google than other federal judges, whose average age reached 69 in 2020, according to a study at the time by The Ohio State Law Journal. He received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1997, a year before Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google.

Judge Mehta previously worked in private practice in San Francisco and Washington, focusing on white-collar criminal defense, complex business disputes and appellate advocacy.

Mr. Kanter, the top antitrust official at the Justice Department, is overseeing the governments case.

President Biden appointed Mr. Kanter, a longtime tech and media lawyer who received his law degree from Washington University in St. Louis, to the Justice Department in July 2021. Mr. Kanter is among a group of progressive Big Tech critics whom Mr. Biden has placed in top government positions for antitrust enforcement. He inherited the Google case from the Trump administration.

Mr. Kanter, 50, is also overseeing a separate antitrust lawsuit against Google in the ad tech market. Google has raised concerns that his history of representing its rivals, including Microsoft and News Corp, makes him biased, and the company has protested his involvement in the ad tech case.

Its unclear how often Mr. Kanter will appear in court. Doha Mekki, the Justice Departments principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Hetal Doshi, the deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust, have helped quarterback the lawsuit and will be in the courtroom daily.

Mr. Dintzer, a 30-year veteran of the Justice Department, will give opening statements and is leading the governments case in the courtroom.

A graduate of the University of Michigan law school, Mr. Dintzer, 59, was assigned to the Google case during the Trump administration. He has argued in pretrial hearings before Judge Mehta that Google destroyed instant messages depriving the department of a rich source of candid discussions between Googles executives, including likely trial witnesses.

He has worked on antitrust cases in the past, including the Justice Departments lawsuit to block AT&Ts proposed merger with T-Mobile in 2011. The companies eventually dropped the deal.

Mr. Weiser is overseeing a coalition of 38 state and other attorneys generals that joined the Justice Department in its search lawsuit.

Mr. Weiser, 55, a former deputy assistant attorney general of antitrust at the Justice Department for the Obama administration, has been a vocal critic of big tech companies for stifling competition. After graduating from New York University Law School, he became a counsel to Joel Klein, the Justice Departments head of antitrust during the agencys Microsoft monopoly lawsuit in the 1990s. He didnt work directly on the case but said in an interview that it had influenced him.

Mr. Weiser has picked Jonathan Sallet, a former deputy head of antitrust at the Justice Department, and William Cavanaugh, a lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and a former Justice Department official, as the lead litigators for the states.

Mr. Pichai, the chief executive of Google, is widely expected to testify during the trial.

He joined Google in 2004 as a product management leader of Chrome and other tools, and was named chief executive in August 2015.

A measured and calm speaker who has at times been called boring, Mr. Pichai, 51, was largely unruffled when testifying in congressional hearings over content moderation and antitrust in recent years. That may serve him well in the trial.

Googles founders, Mr. Page and Mr. Brin, arent expected to be called as witnesses. But the Justice Department and Google are likely to call other tech executives to testify, including Eddy Cue, Apples senior vice president of services, to discuss the companys search deals with Google.

Mr. Walker, Googles president of global affairs and chief legal counsel, is overseeing the companys defense.

Mr. Walker, 62, received his law degree from Stanford and joined Google in 2006. He led Googles policy and legal strategy through an antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission that began in 2009. The agency decided not to proceed with a lawsuit after the company agreed to some changes.

Mr. Walker is overseeing a big team of in-house and outside lawyers and will be in and out of the courtroom. Googles daily legal representative in the courtroom, who has supervised strategy on the case, is Lara Kollios, a director in regulatory response and investigations.

Mr. Schmidtlein, a co-chair of antitrust at Williams & Connolly, is Googles lead lawyer in the courtroom.

Google has turned to lawyers like Mr. Schmidtlein, 57, who fought against Microsoft in antitrust cases two decades ago, to defend it in court. In 2002, Mr. Schmidtlein represented states that sued Microsoft for using its dominance in Windows software to block rival media players.

Mr. Schmidtlein, who received his law degree from Georgetown University, also has a long track record working for tech companies. This year, he helped Amazon defeat an antitrust lawsuit that consumers brought against its logistics practices.

Googles litigation team also includes Susan Creighton, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who represented Netscape in the governments 1998 antitrust suit against Microsoft, and Mark Popofsky, a partner at Ropes & Gray who was a senior counsel to the Justice Department in that suit against Microsoft.

See the rest here:
Whos Who in the Google Antitrust Trial - The New York Times

Senate committee recommends firing Wisconsin’s top elections official in process Democrats dispute – Yahoo News

MADISON, Wis. (AP) A Republican-controlled committee on Monday recommended firing Wisconsin's top elections official rather than reappointing her, clearing the way for a vote by the full GOP-led state Senate as soon as Thursday.

The Senate elections committee voted 3-1 along party lines, with one Democrat abstaining, against confirming nonpartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe for a second term. Democrats have accused GOP leaders of improperly pushing through Wolfe's confirmation after the elections commission's three Republicans and three Democrats deadlocked along party lines in a reappointment vote in June.

Monday's vote comes despite objections from the state's Democratic attorney general and the Legislature's own nonpartisan attorneys who have said that without a majority vote by the commission to reappoint Wolfe, the Senate doesn't have the authority to go forward with deciding whether to confirm or fire her.

In the absence of a majority vote by the commission, a recent Supreme Court ruling appears to allow Wolfe to stay in office indefinitely as a holdover. Conservatives have used that ruling to maintain control of key policy boards. If Wolfe's confirmation is rejected by the full Senate a result that would normally carry the effect of firing her the matter is likely to be resolved through a lawsuit.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu did not immediately respond to an email sent Monday asking about his plans for scheduling a floor vote on Wolfes future. The Senate's next floor period is set for Thursday.

As I said when the Committee first met to discuss Administrator Wolfes continued service to the people of Wisconsin, this nomination is not before us and Senate Republicans are on a path that will waste taxpayer money and create unnecessary controversy around our elections while attacking qualified, hard-working election officials," Democratic Sen. Mark Spreitzer, who cast the sole vote to confirm Wolfe's appointment, said in a statement on Monday.

Spreitzer promised to submit a minority report saying the Senate was moving ahead illegitimately.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers commented on Monday's vote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Republicans are hell-bent on doing everything they can to interfere with our elections, including trying to abuse their power by improperly firing the states elections commissioner, he said.

Wolfe did not attend a public hearing the Senate elections committee held last month on her reappointment. That hearing attracted dozens of election skeptics who repeated widely debunked claims about the 2020 election and called for Wolfe to be fired or even arrested.

She didn't bother to show up to her own public hearing, Republican Sen. Dan Feyen, who voted against reappointing Wolfe, said in a statement. What I heard instead were numerous concerns from Wisconsinites around the state who have lost faith in the job she was doing as administrator.

Conspiracy theorists falsely claim Wolfe was part of a plot to rig the 2020 election in favor of President Joe Biden, and some Senate Republicans have vowed to oust her before the 2024 presidential election. Biden defeated former President Donald Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firms review and numerous state and federal lawsuits.

Elections observers have raised concerns that firing Wolfe or disputing her position through the 2024 election could encourage election skeptics who have already harassed and threatened election officials over the 2020 election.

___

Harm Venhuizen is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Excerpt from:
Senate committee recommends firing Wisconsin's top elections official in process Democrats dispute - Yahoo News

The Sunday Read: ‘Wikipedia’s Moment of Truth’ – The New York Times

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher

In early 2021, a Wikipedia editor peered into the future and saw what looked like a funnel cloud on the horizon: the rise of GPT-3, a precursor to the new chatbots from OpenAI. When this editor a prolific Wikipedian who goes by the handle Barkeep49 on the site gave the new technology a try, he could see that it was untrustworthy. The bot would readily mix fictional elements (a false name, a false academic citation) into otherwise factual and coherent answers. But he had no doubts about its potential. I think A.I.s day of writing a high-quality encyclopedia is coming sooner rather than later, he wrote in Death of Wikipedia, an essay that he posted under his handle on Wikipedia itself. He speculated that a computerized model could, in time, displace his beloved website and its human editors, just as Wikipedia had supplanted the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which in 2012 announced it was discontinuing its print publication.

Recently, when I asked this editor if he still worried about his encyclopedias fate, he told me that the newer versions made him more convinced that ChatGPT was a threat. It wouldnt surprise me if things are fine for the next three years, he said of Wikipedia, and then, all of a sudden, in Year 4 or 5, things drop off a cliff.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Heres how.

We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if youre interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.

Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Prez and Krish Seenivasan.

Visit link:
The Sunday Read: 'Wikipedia's Moment of Truth' - The New York Times

‘The more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence Wikipedia’ – Ynetnews

Whenever we come across an unresolved question or are curious about a certain topic, most of us instinctively turn to Google. But after we type the requested query, we will most likely turn to the next information source - Wikipedia.

It is difficult to imagine our lives today without the platform that has become so obvious. Although it has been criticized time and time again over the years for not being reliable enough, or for controversies surrounding decisions of what should appear in it, or for the low female ratio among its editors - it is nevertheless difficult to underestimate its value. The pre-Wikipedia era, where homework was done with the help of massive, printed encyclopedia volumes, seems like a distant and unreal memory.

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

These days, the Hebrew edition of Wikipedia celebrates its 20th anniversary. In honor of the occasion, we met Michal Wander Schwartz, executive director at the non-profit association Wikimedia Israel, a local Israeli branch of the international Wikimedia Foundation which is behind Wikipedia and other projects.

"Wikipedia to a great extent reflects the moods in society," she says. "People are searching for knowledge about topics that interest them. It's easy to guess which entry has been most viewed on Wikipedia in recent times - the Reasonableness standard - and about six months ago, when the whole issue of judicial reform started, these were entries like Yariv Levin and Judicial overhaul."

Wander Schwartz started leading Wikimedia Israel about six months ago. In her previous positions, she led the establishment of the cultural department for children and seniors in Zichron Ya'akov, as well as the Interdisciplinary Center for Studies of Children and Youth at Risk at the Tel Aviv University School of Social Work.

"When I saw the Wikimedia classified ad, it captivated me," she recalls. "I wanted to do something significant, and I think that Wikimedia has a global impact on the world, by making it better, more equal and just. The idea is to make free and equal content accessible - it belongs to everyone. Everyone can edit, change, contribute, which is an empowering experience, and on the other hand, can consume equally. The knowledge is not in the hands of a small group. There is still a lot to be done to realize this vision, and that is what motivates me in this work."

Did you have any prior experience in editing Wikipedia entries? "No, I knew nothing about this world, I only used it, like most people. Just before I started here, I translated my first entry on Social Thinking, because I wanted to further explore it. It was very interesting. The translation was done by AI software, which also retrieves sources of knowledge, but it is not an automatic translation - the human eye must go over the entry, make an adjustment to the language and culture."

6 View gallery

Michal Wander Schwartz

(Photo: Oded Wander)

The tool that Wander Schwartz mentions is nothing new, just like other AI tools that are being used in Wikipedia, for example, the error detecting tool; but we have been witnessing a growing tension between human creation and AI since the generative AI tools like ChatGPT entered our lives. The potential threat to Wikipedia for becoming irrelevant is imminent, because people might choose to rely on chatbots for information and abandon the old site.

Wander Schwartz refers to an experiment that global Wikimedia recently started running - a Wikipedia add-on for the beta version of ChatGPT that will allow you to search for answers and summarize information from Wikipedia, plus a reference to the relevant source and links to articles for further reading.

"This is progress because ChatGPT is unreliable - we don't know where the information came from and it also has mistakes; so such an add-on strengthens ChatGPT as well as Wikipedia. It was also claimed that Google takes advantage of Wikipedia, but this is not true because Wikipedia appears among the first results. We also know that the chatbot learns through sources of information that are available on the internet, and one of its major sources is Wikipedia, and it gets the credit. This is the right direction.

"Wikipedia's role today is more critical than ever because ChatGPT and the like are very trendy, it's the latest trend, but without human knowledge, they don't stand a chance, nor do the consumers. Consuming incorrect information can be really dangerous in terms of decision-making. It's true that you need to prepare for it and the foundation does that, but it also strengthens our educational agenda, encouraging people to consume information with a critical eye and active thinking."

You mentioned earlier that judicial reform has been a hot topic among users recently. Is the tense atmosphere in Israel today also reflected in disputes among the editors? "There is no doubt that the reality is very vibrant, and it is clearly reflected, but it does not affect the rules as such. The rules are very clear, Wikipedia is a fortified wall in this sense. Those who want to write an entry should maintain a neutral point of view, present reliable sources.

6 View gallery

Anti-judicial reform in Tel Aviv

(Photo: Moti Kimchi)

"You can see arguments and discussions on the Talk page of the entries, which means that there is no behind the scenes here, everything is transparent and exposed. If you enter a controversial entry such as the reasonableness standard, judicial reform, or Yariv Levin, you can read the entry but also enter the Talk page and see all the reality as you know it, as displayed in the newspaper. The Reasonableness clause was the topic with the most views last month, there is a lot of activity and opinions there, with about 24,000 views this month. This is a high figure."

Wander Schwartz says, "many times people tell me: 'Okay, I understand, Wikipedia receives contributions and contributors write for it, but who is the editor-in-chief?', and my answer is 'You are the editor-in-chief. There is no editor-in-chief, there is no one in charge. Anyone can write, edit, correct and influence'."

She describes the mechanism that takes into account a situation in which discussions can reach serious disputes; in that case, the discussions can be frozen - permission that is granted to particular senior editors.

"They can calm the spirits and allow voting on disputes. Those who have made a hundred edits in the last 90 days, that is, contributed enough, can vote. This is to prevent voting disruptions, and to avoid a situation in which people who still don't understand Wikipedia would skew things out of lack of knowledge." According to Wander Schwartz, since the beginning of the protests against the reform, there have been freezes on disputed entries, "and the freeze is often temporary."

We know that on social media and talkbacks, there are many fake users whose goal is to skew the discourse. Is it something you also experience? "Yes, that's why there are several dozen people whose job is to monitor the information, alongside bots. It's a 24/7 contributor job. They locate Sockpuppetry, trolls, biases. Sometimes it takes time, but in the end, these things are neutralized. Not long ago, someone from the Kohelet Policy Forum (which is credited with devising parts of the reform) wrote under several usernames. It took a while to discover it, but he was finally blocked.

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

"Obviously, the more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence. Wikipedia is the largest infrastructure of human knowledge, and it is part of the DNA of knowledge consumption for each and every user across the globe, but we follow the same method, and it has been working for 20 years."

As part of its activities, Wikimedia Israel runs courses, trainings and tutorials for new editors - some in collaboration with the education system and the academy and some for the general public. In this way, the association hopes to make the editorial community more diverse. One of the loaded topics concerning Wikipedia in the world is the minority of women editors on the platform.

"There are approximately 20% women editors in Israel, and this corresponds with the global figures of 15-20%," says Wander Schwartz. "The figures in Israel are true for 2015, but in October this year we intend to conduct a new survey in honor of Wikipedia's 20th anniversary."

"There are 32 editors that are permitted to do more than the general editing, and only one of them is a woman; but as mentioned before, you need to edit enough to be granted the right to vote. Wikipedia has an entire entry that talks about the gender gaps on Wikipedia. It shows interesting data and talks about the history of women in the public sphere, women's exclusion and inequality.

"Look for example at the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In its first edition in 1771, the entry on horse diseases consisted of 39 pages, and the entry on woman consisted of only four words - 'The female of man'. Apart from history, there are also aspects related to women's self-confidence and lack of interest in dealing with conflicts, but I must say that there are women who write on Wikipedia and do not experience it in this way."

Why is this still happening? "I think it has to do with the society we live in, and the more it advances, the more change will occur. We in Wikimedia Israel are aware of this gap and are acting to reduce it. An editing course intended for women only will open in October, and we will accompany the contributors during and after the course. This way they will learn how to write an entry and to deal with the conflicts. These courses are often very successful - the entries are not deleted, and the editors do not escape editing."

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

The activities offered to increase the diversity among the editors are also available for the Arab population. "We work also with the Arab society; they do not work within the Hebrew Wikipedia but contribute to the Arabic Wikipedia.

"We are engaged with the Arab educational system - the teachers are trained to write on Wikipedia, and at the same time teach their students. This is an innovative program that we started this year. We work with the Ministry of Education's superintendent for Arabic, Rawya Burbara, who is responsible for all Arabic studies in Israel.

"The results are amazing - the children wrote 250 entries in Arabic this school year alone. It is very challenging though because the Arab population is partly underprivileged, so the digital literacy is not yet developed enough, and the awareness of the ability to write on Wikipedia and have an impact is also not sufficiently developed."

According to Wander Schwartz, "Our role is to raise awareness and give tools to children and teachers, these are circles that influence each other. This will allow bringing up content that is specifically relevant to the local population. Someone who lives in Morocco does not know what to write about the Arab society in Israel. This year we intend to increase this program significantly; It creates change on every possible scale."

According to her, Wikimedia Israel is the only official branch of the global Wikimedia that is engaged in writing on the Arabic Wikipedia. "There are all kinds of unofficial groups, but there is no other regulated branch like this in the world."

There is no doubt that the reality is very vibrant, and clearly reflected, but those who want to write an entry should maintain a neutral point of view. There is no editor-in-chief, there is no one in charge"

In addition, the association is currently working on developing an editing course dedicated to people on the autistic spectrum. "This is a population with a very interesting point of view, with a lot of knowledge and the ability to contribute to Wikipedia. As far as I know, no one in the global movement has initiated a course like this. It is innovative and groundbreaking, and I hope others will follow us." We are also aiming at launching an editing course for Israelis living abroad, to strengthen the connection between Israel and the Diaspora through writing on Wikipedia."

Another focus is on increasing the contribution of academic institutions. "These are gold mines of knowledge," says Wander Schwartz.

"Imagine that all faculty members in all academic institutions would write only one entry once a year about their field of activity, let's say on 'Wikipedia Day', this would be a wonderful contribution to free knowledge. Imagine that every student would write one entry as part of their academic studies. There are more students than Faculty members - it will be fantastic for the entire society, for the institutions and for the students themselves. That's where we're heading."

Apart from increasing the number of editors and their diversity, the Israeli branch is aiming to promote the GLAM initiative to encourage cultural institutions to share their resources with the public through collaborative projects with Wikipedia editors.

"This issue in Israel is very sensitive and still in its early stages of development." It involves the transferring of media files in the possession of the institutions, such as photos, sculptures or films to Wikimedia Commons initiative, and then "we connect them to relevant entries on Wikipedia. We recently developed a chart that gives an indication of which content has been viewed and much more data."

6 View gallery

(Illustration: Shutterstock)

It is possible that the institutions' avoidance has to do with financial considerations the cultural institutions want the public to buy tickets and visit them? "This is old-fashioned thinking because we see the opposite at large institutions around the world - the more you disclose, the more they want to come to you." Another advantage is the preservation of the art in case of disasters such as fires," she adds.

But some people are afraid to edit. "A lot of people say, 'But what am I going to write about? I'm not an expert, it looks terribly scary.' The work itself is not complex, the tools available are very user-friendly, there is always someone to help, and you don't have to write a thousand-word entry. You can correct, add links, people who master a second language can translate entries. It's a small thing for the individual and a very big thing for Wikipedia, and it's almost addictive - this is what I do on the train on my way home, and I'm exposed to worlds that I wouldn't have been exposed to in my everyday life otherwise.

"We really need the collaboration of as many people as possible. In total, there are currently approximately a thousand editors on the Hebrew Wikipedia, of which several hundred are active, and dozens serve as Wikipedia's protective wall. The more we contribute, the more we can receive, and this is essential. We want to shift people from being passive, i.e. consuming knowledge, to active - creating knowledge. It's a process, but we have still got time."

See the rest here:
'The more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence Wikipedia' - Ynetnews