On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski <electrawn(a)electrawn.com> wrote:
*Would [[Ebony magazine]] be a good source for
[[Theory of relativity]]?
*Would [[Seventeen magazine]] be a good source for [[China]]?
*Would [[Dog Fancy]] be a good source for [[Linux]]?
It is this kind of reasoning that makes me look at [[Southern Voice]]
and wonder if it is a good source for [[Kyra Phillips]]. Same thing
for Financial Times.
These ridiculous analogies are hardly apt. A better analogy: Would
Dog Fancy be a good source for criticism by dog owners of journalistic
coverage of dog issues?
For fun, some authoritative ones that look innocent
but fall apart
under scrunity...
*Use of Media Matters, a 501(3)c "dedicated to comprehensively
monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in
the U.S. media."
I don't see how this falls apart. You aren't scruntinizing anything,
you are dismissing under a simplistic equation: openly stated
political viewpoint=partisan=unreliable. NPOV states that articles
"must represent all significant views fairly and without bias."
Stripping articles of significant views is a violation of this policy.
While researching outlandish sourcing...why does
[[Barbra Streisand]]
mention nothing on politics (one sentence about clinton), [[Al
Franken]] relatively free of criticism...yet [[Ann Coulter]] and [[Pat
Buchanan]] are loaded with it, even with POV forks? [[Al Gore]] seems
cleanish too, but he has a POV fork as well. [[Howard Dean]]. [[Al
Sharpton]], [[Jesse Jackson]] criticism sections are small. It is hard
finding a liberal polemic figure on wikipedia with the same amount of
criticisms as [[Ann Coulter]], [[Pat Buchanan]], [[Tom Delay]]. I am
amazed at the left/right off balance!
I hope you aren't embracing the tired old criticism that Wikipedia is
a hotbed of "liberal bias". You can select a small set of articles to
back up any preexisiting opinion. There are plenty of articles on
liberal figures with large amounts of criticism: Michael Moore and
Dan Rather, for example. I don't agree at all that Al Franken is
"relatively free of criticism" - there are four paragraphs about one
letter he wrote to John Ashcroft alone! I haven't looked at the
others you mentioned yet, but if you are correct that, for example,
Barbra Streisand lacks a significant section on her politics, the
solution is not to declare that WP has a "liberal bias" and strip
criticism out of articles on random journalists, but to fix the Barbra
Striesand article.