On 4/3/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade <seraphimbladewikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The
entire point of NOR is
that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an
article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also
helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can
be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same
question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone
wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial
judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle
course.
Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
- d.
It's an unfortunate truth that many of our editors aren't exactly capable of
exercising good editorial judgment. Also, while I disagree that we should
replace editorial discretion with rules, it's certainly non-contestable that
WP is never the right place for the role of "first reporter".
The solution, I think, is to stay true to NOR as it has always been: don't
use primary sources unless you are using them to present a non-novel
interpretation.
Johnleemk