--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>
Taking the nonexistence of an article
on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is
an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles
published in the NYT and
Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a
reputable secondary
source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I
was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times
has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic
in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we
should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality
sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that
*does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas