[Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[Todd Allen]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:13 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Objective in the sense of non-prejudiced, yes. Objective in the sense
>  of accurate? obviously not. They are an excellent example of the
>  results of  using our very inadequate criteria. RS has recently had a
>  discussion of the problem of dealing with apparently authoritative
>  sources that can be shown to be erroneous.  we keep quoting
>  "verifiability not truth," as if it were something to be proud of, not
>  a frank admission of our limitations.
>  Its like the assertion there all peer-reviewed journals are of equal authority.
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >  --- Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  >
>  >  > --- Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Birgitte writes:
>  >  > >
>  >  > > >> Can you remind me again what sources we *do*
>  >  > > trust
>  >  > > >> altogether for
>  >  > > >> their objectivity?
>  >  > > >
>  >  > > >
>  >  > > > Consumer Reports?
>  >  > > >
>  >  > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Hey, I've actually represented Consumers Union,
>  >  > > which publishes
>  >  > > Consumer Reports!  I love my friends there, but
>  >  > I'm
>  >  > > still traumatized
>  >  > > by the issue in which they rated the IBM PCjr (an
>  >  > > ill-fated, hobbled
>  >  > > machine) over the Apple //c (all the functionality
>  >  > > of a fitted out
>  >  > > Apple //e, but portable!).  I'm not entirely sure
>  >  > > the review was all
>  >  > > that objective.
>  >  > >
>  >  > >
>  >  > > --Mike
>  >  > >
>  >  >
>  >  > They certainly have gotten things wrong over the
>  >  > years.  There have been poorly designed tests, poor
>  >  > executed tests, math errors, and patently stupid
>  >  > preferences of certain criteria in the rankings (do
>  >  > read the full review and not just the rank number).
>  >  > But biased?  That is quite a stretch.
>  >  >
>  >  > Do I entirely trust that I will agree that an item
>  >  > ranked #1 is better than on ranked #4? No.  Do I
>  >  > entirely trust the Consumer's Union is objective?
>  >  > Yes.
>  >  >
>  >
>  >  BTW I am assuming dropping in that you worked with
>  >  them professionally in the past is not a hint that you
>  >  know something about their lack of objectivity that
>  >  the general public does not.  Otherwise it would be a
>  >  bit foolish to disagree with your opinion having no
>  >  such first-hand experience with CU myself.
>  >
>  >  Birgitte SB
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >       ____________________________________________________________________________________
>  >  Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>  >  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  foundation-l mailing list
>  >  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  >  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

"Verifiability, not truth" works fine, even when sources are wrong.

If you have good reason to believe a source has made an error, tell
them so. If they refuse or fail to correct, tell their rivals.

One way or the other, corrections will be printed.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.