Fred Bauder wrote:
If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start, current events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic" treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in retrospect, by Wikipedia. That is why we have two projects, and not one. As regards the stance of the British government towards the media in this case, and in previous cases, it's clear to me that there is a dislocation between the two- and in my experience, the government has long since lost the support of the media, except in most general terms, and that is why we have the term "spin-doctor". It's a two-way process, and not a new one, and where I am, I cannot see any way in which the division of reponsibility to the citizen is to be resolved. TBH, the relationship between politicians and the media, and both of them have their suspect agendas, is always going to be problematic, and all we should do as documenters of what happens is to perhaps stand back for a while, and when the dust has settled,
WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA!
Why is that a problem?
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us have access to.
Fred
And in what way is that an excuse to ignore the rules, or if you don't like them, seek to change them? Agenda-pushers will fall foul of OR, and other policies; those of us who merely wish Wikipedia to reflect the balance of current academic opinion, and are able to be objective about disputed points of view, should be empowered (and that is perhaps correct), to reject fringe theories, although it has to be said that such theories have traditionally been rejected out of hand on Wikpedia.
I need sleep; if it matters, I'll come back. If it doesn't, I won't.
Chuh!