The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikipedia's school for scandal has plenty more secrets to reveal - Guardian
Newsfeed
post Thu 27th March 2008, 12:17am
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885

<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Wikipedia's school for scandal has plenty more secrets to reveal
Guardian, UK -7 minutes ago
Sex, money and Wikipedia have combined in recent weeks for a series of scandals. It began as cofounder Jimmy Wales and conservative pundit Rachel Marsden ...

View the article
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 27th March 2008, 12:28am
Post #2


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


There you have it...

Sex, power, and money.

Now do you believe me?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dogbiscuit
post Thu 27th March 2008, 12:33am
Post #3


Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
********

Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined: Tue 4th Dec 2007, 12:42am
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 27th March 2008, 12:28am) *

There you have it...

Sex, power, and money.

Now do you believe me?


Is the Grauniad a reliable source? blink.gif

Serious point though: we are starting to see "Wikipedia is broken" as a given in the mainstream press. That is healthy as one day, Wikipediots might finally realise it is not just some attack site, (aka The Register? Surely some mistake), but A Problem Anyone Can Understand.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Thu 27th March 2008, 11:49am
Post #4


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23
It is a myth that the established newspapers are always accepted as reliable. If it disagrees with what the cabal think ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128107568

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128252244
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 27th March 2008, 12:41pm
Post #5


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


Relying on a single bylined article in just one newspaper, or a single ill-chosen adjective in a single story in just one newspaper (even if it's the NY Times) is not a reasonable basis for elevating that author or headline writer's interpretation to the status of fact for the purpose of crafting encylopedic BLPs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Random832
post Thu 27th March 2008, 4:18pm
Post #6


meh
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined: Thu 14th Feb 2008, 8:52pm
Member No.: 4,844

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


QUOTE(guy @ Thu 27th March 2008, 11:49am) *

It is a myth that the established newspapers are always accepted as reliable. If it disagrees with what the cabal think ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128107568

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128252244


I will state for the record - without commenting on the specific incident - that the "verification needed" template is (supposed to be) not a claim about the reliability of the source itself, but instead is an expression of doubt that the source actually says what the article claims it says.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Thu 27th March 2008, 5:33pm
Post #7


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23
QUOTE(Random832 @ Thu 27th March 2008, 4:18pm) *

I will state for the record - without commenting on the specific incident - that the "verification needed" template is (supposed to be) not a claim about the reliability of the source itself, but instead is an expression of doubt that the source actually says what the article claims it says.

Thanks for that. In this case, there is no doubt that the source actually says what the article claims it says, but I won't hijack the thread.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Thu 27th March 2008, 11:15pm
Post #8


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs


In the case I have in mind, the newspaper story actually quoted the subjects of several BLPs as vigorously disagreeing with the POV in the newspaper headline. Nonetheless, the POV-pushing editors on WP insisted on labeling those BLP subjects as agreeing with the POV of the headline.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 5 13, 6:59am