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!