[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

[Sean Barrett]

slimvirgin at gmail.com stated for the record:

> That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a
> fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's
> checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again
> by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking
> for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues.
> Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a
> fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the
> managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and
> even the owners.

That's a nice theory.  Too bad it has little or nothing to do with the 
real world.  Once again, I point out [[journalism scandals]].

> We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on
> sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  However, it is not 
Wikipedia policy.

--
  Sean Barrett     | It is lovely to watch the coloured
  sean at epoptic.com | shadows on the planets of eternal light.