[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> But it does have authoritative perspective.  That is exactly my point
> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
> extreme.  Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
> our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the label.


If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information 
contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a 
calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two 
numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its 
results, even when it added the numbers correctly.

For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little 
importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if 
one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate 
information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way 
authoritative.