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.
On 7/8/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:19:55 +0100, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that certain OTRS people appear to want WP:OFFICE level powers without either gaining community support or a board ruling.
{{fact}}
I am one of them, I know a lot of others, all we actually want is for people to be prepared to wait a while for things to be cleared up. Step 1: remove the offending material to forestall legal action; step 2: tell people as much about why as you can. Step 3: when possessed of as many of the facts as possible, proceed with caution.
People are genuinely upset when Wikipedia says bad things about them. Sometimes the bad things need to be said, albeit sometimes with somewhat less obvious spite, but it does us no harm to demonstrate at every point that we have listened respectfully to their concerns, even if we ultimately dismiss them as baseless.
As with any trusted position in Wikipedia, isolation and burnout are a risk. Do be sure to be as kind and supportive as you can to the volunteers, because there are barely enough to keep on top of the flood of email, some of which requires a very great deal of work to get to the bottom of.
Or of course you could always stand on the outside pissing in, but since all that will do is increase the siege mentality about which you appear to be complaining I don't consider it a smart alternative.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l