This is true, but even blogs need to keep up their standards or things can fall apart and people go elsewhere. It helps to have accountability in the sense of having someone actually "in charge" -- this kind of comes in lieu of a more institutional "reputation" of a newsgathering organization. Even the latter rests on some institutional assumptions, and recent cases (Judy Miller) might make current newsorgs appear rather Herstian (Yellow journalism) and therefore something to avoid like the flux.
Wikipedia, being neither a newsorg (under reputation), or a blog (editorial paper under personal account) isnt likely to benefit from any static "policy." It may benefit from an editorial board, however, who contribute to a 'policy body' (like a case record for Arbcom).
Dont even ask me about wikinews: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Purpose
SV
--- charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Keith Old wrote
Blogs have editorial standards depending on the
expertise and capacity of the blogger.
Or not. Strange to equate in any way blogs, which are only online diaries or journals, with media where incompetent journalism can cost a job or career.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com