[WikiEN-l] Durova/!! matter now in newspaper.

[Ral315]

On Dec 4, 2007 12:40 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315>While I see your point, Ral315,
> as I pointed out to jossi earlier this
> evening, we have well over 1000  links to this "rag" on Wikipedia right
> now
> (I think it comes out to 1835). If it is that bad a source, then there's
> some major cleaning up to do. I doubt you'll manage to convince all ov the
> editors on all of the articles where it is used that it is that bad of a
> source. I'll agree it comes out a bit like a hit piece, but I've seen far
> worse in "reliable" sources on similar subjects. It would be interesting
> to
> know if the Foundation or Jimbo were asked to comment though, which is one
> thing the article doesn't say.


I wouldn't call it a rag.  They're reliable on many subjects.  However, on
some, particularly Wikipedia, they have a distinct and non-relenting bias.
While this article wasn't particularly bad, the fact is that every article
they write about Wikipedia includes a dig at our reliability, editors,
"cabal", or something else they can complain about.  I said I wouldn't call
it a "newspaper" because when I think of a newspaper, The Register doesn't
come to mind at all.

Like any source, their biases should be seriously considered.

-- 
Sincerely,
Ral315
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315