On 10/17/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the
explanation I gave on the
talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that
this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate
everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Your explanation of why you thought the Ogrish link was unreliable was
"It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It
has been victimized by hoaxes in the past."
The first sentence is just a repetition of your opinion that it's
unreliable, the second is a fact that appears well supported on the
[[
Ogrish.com]] page but doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (much
like how "being a blog" doesn't necessarily mean a source is
unreliable), and the third is unsupported by any examples either
directly from you or on [[
Ogrish.com]] itself.
Bryan, I don't know that the Ogrish link was being used for in this
case, but in general our understanding of what's "reliable" involves a
degree of editorial oversight, such as fact-checking, legal scrutiny,
and so on. I believe the Ogrish site posts video and images from
anyone who sends them in, regardless of whether they're authentic or
staged; if it looks horrible or weird, they'll use it. That makes it
pretty close to the opposite of our definition of reliable.
Sarah