On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
You could make an argument that the article might give an uninvolved party a reasonable "feel" for the situation, but there still would be effectively no way to incorporate the _facts_ from this article into Wikipedia in a manner which would not reduce the accuracy of the encyclopaedia. We use citations to source the factual details of our articles, and this work generally gets the details wrong.
The article is basically not even wrong. And that's because they really don't care, and literally just made up some shit:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/16/jimmy-wales-fox-news-is-wrong-no-shakeup/
Sources of this type, even if owned by a large media company, need to be taken with an extra grain of salt.
- d.