Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone
wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've
found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral & reliable source, with
the odd exceptions.
Tris
On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda
ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has
been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
come forward will we get a good idea.
________________________________
From: FT2<ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l