[WikiEN-l] The terrorists have won

[stevertigo]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ken Arromdee<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
> It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity
> to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them.  We
> *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest.  The fact that we
> did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to
> have a conflict of interest.

Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling -
no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in
that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept.

The problems then lie in the intersection between journalism and the
real-world, and not just within professional journalism itself --
which to a certain degree Wikipedia is included. How else does the
real world impose upon journalism? To what extent is Wikipedia founded
in journalistic concepts, and is thus beholden to its principles? I've
mentioned before how NPOV is really just principled journalistic
objectivity in a repackaged for a more dynamic environment.

-Steve