[Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

[Phil Nash]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> If only I could be so sanguine; I cannot disagree with Fred's first
>> paragraph, but as regards his second I must take issue. For a start,
>> current
>> events should be covered by Wikinews, and subsequent *encyclopedic"
>> treatment of those events be dealt with in analytic terms and in
>> retrospect,
>> by Wikipedia. That is why we have two projects, and not one. As
>> regards the
>> stance of the British government towards the media in this case, and
>> in previous cases, it's clear to me that there is a dislocation
>> between the two- and in my experience, the government has long since
>> lost the support of
>> the media, except in most general terms, and that is why we have the
>> term "spin-doctor". It's a two-way process, and not a new one, and
>> where I am, I
>> cannot see any way in which the division of reponsibility to the
>> citizen is
>> to be resolved. TBH, the relationship between politicians and the
>> media, and
>> both of them have their suspect agendas, is always going to be
>> problematic,
>> and all we should do as documenters of what happens is to perhaps
>> stand back
>> for a while, and when the dust has settled,
>>
>> WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA!
>>
>> Why is that a problem?
>
> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
> have access to.
>
> Fred

And in what way is that an excuse to ignore the rules, or if you don't like 
them, seek to change them? Agenda-pushers will fall foul of OR, and other 
policies; those of us who merely wish Wikipedia to reflect the balance of 
current academic opinion, and are able to be objective about disputed points 
of view, should be empowered (and that is perhaps correct), to reject fringe 
theories, although it has to be said that such theories have traditionally 
been rejected out of hand on Wikpedia.

I need sleep; if it matters, I'll come back. If it doesn't, I won't.

Chuh!