On 4/9/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/04/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That was a little strong, let me rephrase. A BLP subject does not have the right to expunge any material that other editors deem has come from a reliable source. If you show your boobs on
video
while you were drunk once, guess what? You did it, now face the
consequences
:)
I'm talking about the case where something simply incorrect makes it into a newspaper and never goes away, and the subject can't correct it because robotic idiots claiming to be editors read in WP:RS that a newspaper is always a Reliable Source. Never mind that anyone who's ever actually been in the press will laugh hollowly at the notion. Suability is not the same as accuracy.
- d.
A sad case in point being the scientologist driven campaign to shut down The anon.penet.fi server. The Observer was spoofed by them into reporting that 90% of child porn on the internet is trafficed by the server. Even though The Observers own readers wrote in in huge volume that that was quite preposterous, espescially as Julf had put severe restrictions on the size of emails that could be sent through penet, and yet, The Observer never admitted it had erred, but merely pedaled down the story by noting that "Johan Helsingius had consistently denied the allegations." Which is a very poor form of apology for getting the story wrong.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]