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

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

On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> 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,


Not at all. By all means deal with peer reviewed articles. But many 
press reports, even in the 'quality' media are at best little more than 
an uncritical regurgitation of some press release, and at worse they 
have sensationalised the release. One should take such things with a 
large pinch of salt as they are mostly crap. Stick it in wikinews if you 
must but leave the main articles untainted.


> and the vested interests that finance the
> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
> journalists. That makes no sense to me.
>


They're not disinterested, most of the reports aren't being written by 
science journalists, or by any one that actually understands the issues. 
You and I both know that if a health scare arises, you'll find the exact 
same report on 100s of news sites and if you trace it back to source 
you'll find it comes from an single POV pushing 'interested' party with 
the juicy bits emphasised.


Where were the 100000s that Pig Flu was meant to kill last year, or the 
millions that Bird Flu was going to kill the year before?

Stick these things in an article labelled "Bullshit Science Reports" and 
move them out if they ever turn out to be true.


> 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.
>


For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&oldid=133421215

the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.