QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 21st December 2007, 8:13pm)
Oh, dear. We're 30 minutes since this hit the wire, and already
37 publications have re-printed it on their websites.
Should we add to the BADSITES list, the following?
- San Diego Union Tribune
- CBS-4 Denver
- Brisbane Times, Australia
- Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
- Houston Chronicle
- Miami Herald
- The News & Observer (Raleigh-Durham, NC)
- Denver Post
- Newsday (New York)
- Orlando Sentinel
- Forbes
- International Herald Tribune (France)
- Minneapolis Star Tribune
Oh dear, oh dear. This doesn't look like a "non-story" any more, does it?
Greg
Added to the time line.
The Wikien-l has picked this up too...All they seem to care about is "whether she's notable enough for a bio or not"....
Sheez, they just don't get it, do they???
Jimbo weighs in here....saying that since another, entirely unrelated financial scandal doesn't have an article, then why should this be covered in Wikipedia???
Is he therefore suggesting that this IS therefore a financial scandal? What about that audit, Jimbo? Where are we at with that?
The point should be "don't give money to Wikipedia: they can't be trusted"....
And then we have this interesting "catch-22" discussion:
If we make an exception for this "notable" but "sad story", then what does this mean in the longrun for bios of living persons??This post has been edited by the fieryangel: