[WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case

[Harry Willis]

Through ignorance, through weakness, through its own deliberate fault...?
;)

Interestingly enough, though, Blacketer wasn't the one who removed the
"consistency" comment – he was the one who added it in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=242271726&oldi
d=242266826

The DM allege that he "tried to remove a reference to the Tories having a
'consistent' lead in the polls." In actual fact, he merely replaced it with
a more relevant one – and you'll never guess which news outlet it was that
he cited.

Make what you will of Blacketer's account juggling, but to my mind there
isn't even a case for arguing non-neutral editing here. To borrow WP:COI, I
can hardly see that advancing outside interests was more important than
advancing the aims of Wikipedia in this case.

But hey, caveat lector, right..?

– H
 

On 08 June 2009 at 13:41, FT2 [ft2.wiki at gmail.com] wrote:
> To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and
> they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't
> have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
> 
> FT2