Slim decided that leading british paper is not a reliable source Options

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?




down the rabbit hole we go

Now the Observer shouldn't be mentioned on talkpages if SV doesn't like it - isn't this straight forward admin abuse of powers in a content dispute?
down the rabbit hole we go

This is the article in question . This is the newspaper article in question.

Rather than the "Observer" I believe you mean The Grauniad.

No, it's the Observer, the Guardian's sunday newspaper. We have had previous discussions about this person here and here.

Well I think this was well done. (removing this off his talk pag and freezing the page)

Are you guys not aware that: Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.

It was criminal that this even happened.

If Slim wants to cover it up, more power to her. It was complete crap that the article ever happened, the author used "wikipedia vocabulary" as if it were real English (calling the professor a "disruptive editor" which goes beyond being unkind - it is professionally insulting). The man never made a rude edit on wiki, and he gets that? For arguing with people about substance?

I think that the entire Observer article should be retracted. And certainly not mentioned on his talk page for God's sake.

Its the first decent thing SV has done in ages. Maybe the most decent thing shes ever done. Dont needle her on this one.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Tue 18th December 2007, 9:39pm

Are you guys not aware that: [/b] Someone at Wikipedia obviously contacted the writer (Jenny H or something) at the Guardian Observer, and asked her to write a smear article on Professor Carl H, detailing his bad arbcom and pre-arbcom session.

Lolololol Such papers wouldn't be so obliging as to write a 'smear' article if someone suggested it. They are a bit more reputable (and less lazy) than that and would have formed their own opinion based on the facts of the Hewitt person's words etc.

This is the Guardian. Even The Sun wouldn't do that- they'd mock the 'snitch' even more than the intended victim if they were more worthy of it.

We've got it. The person who wrote the article is biased, and much of it is either misleading or just incorrect. So what?

This does not mean that we should trust unaccountable admins to decide that part of an otherwise reliable source is terrible and should never be mentioned.

The bloke concerned oor his sympathisers willhave written their view of the article somewhere, and it could be included for the sake of NPOV, rather than both removed.

Lolololol Such papers wouldn't be so obliging as to write a 'smear' article if someone suggested it. They are a bit more reputable (and less lazy) than that and would have formed their own opinion based on the facts of the Hewitt person's words etc.

This is the Guardian. Even The Sun wouldn't do that- they'd mock the 'snitch' even more than the intended victim if they were more worthy of it.

Gosh. Reporters are human. And they have huge discretion over such things. The better ones use it wisely. This looks like one of the other cases. I don't think I've ever seen such a badly referenced article, and again, I hark back to journalism class in the 7th grade. As for the persons being reputable and not lazy, I suggest you show me one person's name in that article, to back up the insults she made. Not a one. Beyond this, the person suggested that Wikipedia rules were directly translatable to the real world, and extrapolated the COI provisions to presumptive "self aggrandizement", which was completely inappropriate and just.plain.wrong.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 20th December 2007, 1:13am