[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

[????]

On 24/10/2010 17:01, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information.
>> Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour,
>> half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic information doesn't
>> change from day to day or even from month to month.>>
>>
>
> Straw man argument again.
> No one is arguing the contrary side, so you win, which is your point.
> But it's not related to what we're actually doing.
> And you're trying to paint your *opponents* of which your straw man creates
> none, with a broad brush.
>
> Stick to what's actually occurring.
> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
> or Joan of Arc ?
>

One should use accredited independent sources, which in the case of 
Statin and Flu Virus would be the appropriate international or 
governmental medical bodies. Have used that information the article 
should not be buggered about with.

If we were back in 30th May 1431 an interview with the Duke of Bedford 
in the Rouen Gazette might be reliable as to what he said, but what was 
said would have had only a passing reference to the truth. There would 
be no reason for it to be in an the Encyclopaedia of June 1st 1431.