[WikiEN-l] Reliable sources— some of these babies are ugly

[Charles Matthews]

Risker wrote:
> On 15 May 2010 21:40, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:28 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean at me.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I think Charles was saying that admins aren't always good at dealing
>>>> with the public.
>>>>         
>>> Well it's journalistically improper to use admins as sources. At the
>>> very least they would have to find an official cabal member.
>>>       
>> Can someone point me to the admins as sources bit?
>>
>> On IRC earlier today User:Ottava_Rima appeared to be claiming to be
>> their source, though I could have been completely misunderstanding
>> him.
>>
>>
>>     
> There were quotes from Foundation-L in the article, which is, I believe,
> what Charles was referring to.  It's time to recognise that anyone,
> including reporters, can read those mailing lists; one doesn't even have to
> subscribe for some of them, I believe.  So it is advisable that people think
> carefully about what they are saying, and to be aware that the audience is
> not limited to people who are active participants in the various
> communities.
>
>   
Obviously, with so many admins (maybe 1000 active and semi-active), a 
single admin's beefs don't count for that much. There is a whole 
spectrum of opinion on Jimbo (as on every other issue). Admins are not 
going to self-censor - it is not our way. But every opinion can be put 
in a measured manner: that is not, generally, our way either, but I 
think the advantages are apparent of _not_ using language like this:

"By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of 
the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their 
beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other".

This is classic WP-internal rhetoric, isn't it? It is designed to press 
buttons with those who, although notionally subscribing to "WP isn't a 
democracy", basically believe there is "no consensus that doesn't 
include me". It is quite possible to write "there were plenty who 
disagreed", without covering in batter, frying in lard, sprinkling with 
onion rings and cheese, placing under the grill. and serving with 
sparklers and a side-salad of old grievances.

Of course the story isn't a reliable source. Mainstream media reports 
are only sometimes reliable. We shouldn't  be so doctrinaire, all round.

Charles