I don't think the point is "needing to reach" but rather it's
"slapping
the hand that reaches".
Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
sources "in these cases" as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what
that implies. Perhaps the NYT can stop being double-faced and come
clean on their exact argument for blackouts.
Was this even a blackout? Or was it merely the case that there were
not enough sources reporting it yet?
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 2:53 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
Once it's all over
the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the
article.
- d.
Yes, we simply need not reach. At least not in such instances.
Fred
_______________________________________________
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