[WikiEN-l] The Register decries Wikipedia's "censorship" via OTRS

[Steven Walling]

Andrew,  a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor
stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that
the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an
article, but several others on varied topics. Such as one once used as the
primary source of info in the FA-class Guinea pig article, about what they
called "cultural persecution" by the city of NY, when no person was quoted
as leveling such a charge. All news organizations could be argued to have an
editorial slant. But slanting actual facts to place them in a different
light, and printing things that were never said or done to lend notability
to story that never existed, that isn't a reliable news source. It's a
tabloid. Plain and simple.

Wikipedians know better to use other tabloids, say like the World Weekly
News or The National Enquirer, as reliable sources for serious facts about
events. But the use of this particular rag as "good" verification is still
in practice. This is unacceptable.


On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level
> >powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
>
> {{fact}}
>
> I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for
> people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up.
> Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action; step
> 2: tell people as much about why as you can. Step 3: when possessed of
> as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
>
> People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them.
> Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with
> somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at
> every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even
> if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
>
> As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a
> risk.  Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the
> volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the
> flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to
> get to the bottom of.
>
> Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but
> since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you
> appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>