Steven Walling wrote:
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.
The National Enquirer has developed its reputation over an extended period of time that long predates the internet. Reputations are not built overnight, and reputation is not an objective measure of anything. It is just one more POV about something, even in the case of a publication as blatant as The National Enquirer.
Until I went there to see what the "lava lamp" issue was about, I had no idea what anybody meant by "The Register" You make a lot of general statements about them which may or may not be false perceptions. I don't have the time to check all that out. Others here may see the site in a completely different light. Why should I believe you any more than him? Saying that references must be from "reliable sources" requires a determination that the source be reliable, and we are not equipped to come to such conclusions without extensive original research. A generally disreputable source may still have reputable individual authors writing under their own by-lines..
Ec