[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[geni]

2009/6/29 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com>:
> This case is more about basic common sense.

I'm not interested in the collection of prejudices you acquired by the
age of 18. They are a poor substitute for logic, evidence and reason.

> If someone's life may be
> endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
> would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
> agencies were reliable.

If editors were not concerned with the reliability of the news agency
they should just cite BLP on the basis that it's pretty much
impossible to show that any given edit doesn't violate it and the side
effects of rule lawyering with it are likely to be more limited.
Lightly labeling a source unreliable is problematical.


-- 
geni