On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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.