I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type
of information.
I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a "WWII bomber
found on the moon" story, and I was somewhat cynical about the
following week's "WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon"
headline, or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is
that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage,
so xxxx has signed for yyy FC or zzzz died is probably usable. As for
the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway?
WereSpielChequers.
On 4 February 2011 13:25, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
From: wiki <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat
Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been
termed a cult
leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]]
writings" - stating
"This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers
need to know".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&…
5705319
The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from
"Brisbane
Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now,
neither could be
deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a
cultist, we'd want a
neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of
journalists who tend
to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone
who's been
involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality
papers, knows
that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research,
dreadful
fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said
that, Jimbo's
addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult
leader" in the
popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the
business of reporting
what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively,
or neutrally
said"? I guess I'm unsure.
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]]
writings".
Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what
"anti-cult" people
are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The
sources in this
case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical
Christians. (NB, the
editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his
troubles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php
title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)
Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include.
But perhaps the
labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight,
when included so
prominently in the lead.
The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to
invite the reader
to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be
true, and "the most
important thing readers need to know" - but is this really
neutrality? Are
we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.
As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is
famous for doing "exorcisms on air":
http://www.boblarson.org/
Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or
form an encyclopedic source though.
Here is another example. The article on "New Village Leadership Academy"
sources the following statement to this website:
http://www.radaronline.com/
Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source?
This is the statement concerned that we have in our article:
---o0o---
Cales stated: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist,
have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard
principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs
Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of
the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David
Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."[24]
---o0o---
Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a
Scientologist. Here is a quote:
---o0o---
Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and
her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She
emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion -
- until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist
because
I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear
about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a
religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the
greatest men I know."
http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-se…
---o0o---
Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of
Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other
non-Scientologists.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l