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