[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk
Mon Oct 25 00:14:51 UTC 2010
On 24/10/2010 23:48, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 23:40, ????<wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the
>> work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion,
>> whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a
>> site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page
>> can be turned on its head from one page request to the next.
>> Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain
>> old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike
>> forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia.
> It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve
> in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in
> general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you
> actually expect to?
Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
get some here to think as to how one might produce a body of work that
can be relied upon. Where the body of work isn't continually under
attack or being buggered about with.
In the case of drugs it is entirely unclear why the pages should reflect
this months news reports. Someone dies in Epping Forest a drug is blamed
and someone adds that to the article page for the drug. The drug may or
may not have been responsible the person putting the report on the page
has no way of knowing. You'll remember that those two kids died in the
UK and some recreational drug mephedrone was blamed. It turned out that
neither had taken the stuff. Here:
you'll find this:
According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist who is a member
of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed deaths by
newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration,
distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with
the reporting of recreational drug use"
its worth holding on to that thought as it happens not just with
recreational drugs, but with almost every medical story. The newspapers
distort and exaggerate. Actually this particular quote is a bit of an
exaggeration in itself the full section currently reads:
Toxicology reports following the deaths of two teenagers
(Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19) that were
widely reported by the media to be caused by mephedrone,
and which led to a ban on the substance in April 2010,
showed that the teenagers had in fact not taken any
mephedrone. According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist
who is a member of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed
deaths by newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration,
distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with the
reporting of recreational drug use.
The two teenagers died on March 15th and the Fiona Measham article was
published online 3 days before the two teenagers died. The current state
of the article implies that it is the reporting of the events
surrounding those two teenagers that she is referring to, when in fact
it is not.
More information about the foundation-l