[WikiEN-l] Signpost and basic journalistic integrity

[Nathan]

Hi Tony,

I should have informed you of the post, and I apologize for not doing so.
But on the rest, I disagree. I think my post was more even-handed than your
News and notes bit. I didn't speak to you first or afford you the
opportunity to respond, but I didn't quote you misleadingly. You haven't
complained that I manipulated your quotes, or illustrated my post about you
in such a way that readers would draw a false impression. It was hardly a
smear - I said publishing the comment was a disappointing ethical lapse.
The rest of it was, as you say, just the facts.

Frankly, it's not bullying to criticize the standard of journalism evident
in your article. As a writer for a publication, you should be willing to
accept such criticism as a valuable part of the process. It's worth noting
the absence of your defenders on this piece. Even those who agree with you
that such content on Wikivoyage is unsavory (as I do) aren't arguing that
the piece was written to high standards.

When you frame "just the facts" with polemic, fail to disclose a relevant
history, use misleading illustrations and include quotes such that their
sources complain of manipulation, you've done something wrong. It's
off-putting, below what we'd like to see from the Signpost, and it
certainly doesn't help Wikivoyage if your call to action simultaneously
alienates people on both sides of the debate.