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

[David Gerard]

On 17 May 2010 14:57, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> You could make an argument that the article might give an uninvolved
> party a reasonable "feel" for the situation, but there still would be
> effectively no way to incorporate the _facts_ from this article into
> Wikipedia in a manner which would not reduce the accuracy of the
> encyclopaedia.  We use citations to source the factual details of our
> articles, and this work generally gets the details wrong.


The article is basically not even wrong. And that's because they
really don't care, and literally just made up some shit:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/16/jimmy-wales-fox-news-is-wrong-no-shakeup/

Sources of this type, even if owned by a large media company, need to
be taken with an extra grain of salt.


- d.