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

SlimVirgin slimvirgin at gmail.com
Sun Oct 24 14:43:42 UTC 2010

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:20, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
>> mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
>> reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the
>> funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
> Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that exists on a topic.  ...

That's missing my point though. In the case of drugs, much of the
scholarly literature is financed by the people who are making billions
from selling the drug.

There is no other situation in which we allow articles to be sourced
entirely, or almost entirely, to the people who have manufactured the
product we are writing about.
> Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that.

That is what is not being allowed.

> A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following wording:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [snip] ... The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. ... [snip]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources.

Actually I believe I wrote the words about the socio-economic and
human impact. And I have asked only that there be a thoughtful
wiki-wide discussion before changing the policy.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list