[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
slimvirgin at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 11:40:08 UTC 2010
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, <wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,<WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart than
>>> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once the controversy is
>>> over, in other words once 25,000 people have gotten sick from salmonella
>>> eggs... not just a thousand. No wait, actually after all the lawsuits are over
>>> and the people involved are all dead as well.
>> We should not be using our own judgment in these matters. If the
>> London Times or BBC report problems with Lipitor, or anything else,
>> that's a good enough source for us, and we should not be allowing
>> editors to stop it from being added to our articles.
> Yet both these sources can be sensational. The science reporting is
> abysmal at times. When they have a science scare I have to turn the BBC
> radio4 news off because of the crap reporting. If any one is in the UK
> they'll know exactly what I'm taling about.
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world
regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the
debate even if we personally dislike some of it.
More information about the foundation-l