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

[Shmuel Weidberg]

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Though he remains the president of the Wikimedia Foundation," ...
> "'He had the highest level of control, he was our leader,' a source
> told FoxNews.com. When asked who was in charge now, the source said,
> 'No one. It’s chaos.'"

I'm not sure what the issue with this news article is. It is
essentially accurate. It sounds funny, but the fact is that Jimbo had
the ability and the authority to make unilateral decisions before, and
now he's given some of that up.

Sure the news has a slant, is sensationalized, and bears the
inaccuracy of being written by a non-community member for
non-community members, but it remains as accurate as could be
expected.

The purpose of requiring reliable sources is so that people can't make
things up and put them in the articles. Using this as a source will
show more or less the truth. Unfortunately it is a limitation of
general news media that it always distorts whatever it reports and
there is no good reason to consider any news reports as reliable,
especially when it comes to details.