[WikiEN-l] The Register decries Wikipedia's "censorship" via OTRS

Ray Saintonge saintonge at telus.net
Sun Jul 8 22:47:08 UTC 2007

Steven Walling wrote:

>Andrew,  a newssource is not "reasonably good" when it sensationalizes minor
>stories and even prints patent falsehoods. I arrived at the conclusion that
>the Register is not a reliable source after not just this awful mess of an
>article, but several others on varied topics. Such as one once used as the
>primary source of info in the FA-class Guinea pig article, about what they
>called "cultural persecution" by the city of NY, when no person was quoted
>as leveling such a charge. All news organizations could be argued to have an
>editorial slant. But slanting actual facts to place them in a different
>light, and printing things that were never said or done to lend notability
>to story that never existed, that isn't a reliable news source. It's a
>tabloid. Plain and simple.
>Wikipedians know better to use other tabloids, say like the World Weekly
>News or The National Enquirer, as reliable sources for serious facts about
>events. But the use of this particular rag as "good" verification is still
>in practice. This is unacceptable.
The National Enquirer has developed its reputation over an extended 
period of time that long predates the internet.  Reputations are not 
built overnight, and reputation is not an objective measure of 
anything.  It is just one more POV about something, even in the case of 
a publication as blatant as The National Enquirer. 

Until I went there to see what the "lava lamp" issue was about, I had no 
idea what anybody meant by "The Register"  You make a lot of general 
statements about them which may or may not be false perceptions.  I 
don't have the time to check all that out.  Others here may see the site 
in a completely different light.  Why should I believe you any more than 
him?  Saying that references must be from "reliable sources"  requires a 
determination that the source be reliable, and we are not equipped to 
come to such conclusions without extensive original research.  A 
generally disreputable source may still have reputable individual 
authors writing under their own by-lines..


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list