On 6/5/07, Angela Anuszewski <angela.anuszewski(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. Featured articles are
> > supposed to be our *best* articles. not steaming piles of excrement.
>
>
> I don't know about one of the best, but I found the article to be
> interesting and half-decent (though a little bit rambling), up until the
> "Social Impacts" section (which I skipped as it sounds like a boring
topic).
>
> Why do you think the article was a steaming pile of excrement? Had you ever
> seen the video before reading it? I've never seen it, nor did I read the
> transcript.
It has the makings of a good article. There were severe problems of
tone, particularly the use of weasel words and use of what looks like
some pretty ropey tabloid-style reporting and what appeared to be some
rather nasty manipulation of people by journalists, as if it were
reliably sourced and honest reporting. It was that part of the
article that rang very loud alarm bells for me. I might expect
children to fall for that kind of trick, but it was a shock to see
that such material had been entered into an article, which had then
been labelled one of our best.
I still don't like the fact that the guys' names are there. They are
not relevant to the story. I've worked around that and pulled out
some of the worst fangs of that nasty thing. It shouldn't be a
featured article right now. There are still problems. This isn't what
we want the world to thing we do.