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

[SlimVirgin]

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.