[WikiEN-l] Interesting debate over reliable sources

[Sarah]

On 7/9/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/9/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The policy is based on common sense, not dogma. When you send a letter
> > to a newspaper for publication, you're expected to supply your name,
> > address, and telephone number so that someone from the newspaper can
> > check that you really did send it.
>
> I'd imagine if I was claiming to be a well-known individual, they
> MIGHT check it, but even then, I have my doubts whether they would do
> so every single time.
>
> > Newspapers have processes in place to avoid this
> > scenario, and they have libel insurance for when things go wrong. We
> > have none of those things, which is why we piggy-back on other
> > people's, by using only material that has already been checked.
>
> I think it's a huge amount of faith you have in the press that they
> check stuff at all well.  My experience is the opposite.
>
>
Matt, many newspapers do make checks for every letter they're going to
publish. The point is that you have to supply your details so they can
check in principle.

As for fact-checking processes, all decent-sized newspapers will have,
first, an editor who assigns the story to a reporter and who may check
it periodically while it's being written; then it'll be edited by a
copy editor who'll look for obvious factual errors and legal problems;
and then finally by a page editor. That's the bare minimum and that's
only if no problems are picked up. If there are problems, more people
are involved (senior editors, maybe lawyers), and many newspapers and
serious magazines have much more elaborate basic processes. In
addition, all these people are trained researchers/writers/editors.

Mistakes in newspapers cost them money, sometimes a lot of money, so
they're highly motivated not to get things wrong.

We have none of those things. The only thing we have is a policy that
says we have to use halfway decent sources who DO have them.

Sarah