slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
That's a nice theory. Too bad it has little or nothing to do with the real world. Once again, I point out [[journalism scandals]].
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not Wikipedia policy.
-- Sean Barrett | It is lovely to watch the coloured sean@epoptic.com | shadows on the planets of eternal light.