[WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})

[wiki]

> On 4 February 2011 01:32, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> One is expected to use sound editorial judgment. Using British tabloids
>> for a biography of a living person falls outside that remit. One is
>> expected to have some familiarity with what is an appropriate source
>> for
>> the subject.
>

OK, let's take a case in point: Prem Rawat

Jimbo recently added into the lead "Rawat has often been termed a cult
leader in popular press report, as well as [[anti-cult]] writings" - stating
"This is, without a doubt, the most important thing readers need to know". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=411493466&oldid=40
5705319 

The citations he provided for the "popular press" were from "Brisbane
Courier-Mail" and "The London Courier-Standard". Now, neither could be
deemed "expert sources". If we want to label the chap a cultist, we'd want a
neutral academic or some authority. Not the writings of journalists who tend
to recycle, sensationalise, and do little research. Anyone who's been
involved in a newstory that's been reported even in quality papers, knows
that daily newscycle journalists do piss-poor research, dreadful
fact-checking, and drastic oversimplifications. Having said that, Jimbo's
addition is perfectly true, he's often been termed a "cult leader" in the
popular press. The question is, is Wikipedia in the business of reporting
what is "often said" or what is "reliably, authoritively, or neutrally
said"? I guess I'm unsure.
 
The other half of Jimbo's insertion concerns "[[anti-cult]] writings".
Again, these sources are perfectly reliable as to what "anti-cult" people
are saying. But they are also highly partisan sources. The sources in this
case are "Bob Larson" and "Ron Rhodes" both evangelical Christians. (NB, the
editor who pointed this out, has since been banned for his troubles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php
title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=411950776#Momento)

Again, "what the critics say" isn't a bad thing to include. But perhaps the
labels applied by Larson and Rhodes are given undue weight, when included so
prominently in the lead.

The effect of this inclusion in the first paragraph, is to invite the reader
to conclude "everyone says he's a cultist". That may be true, and "the most
important thing readers need to know" - but is this really neutrality? Are
we using sources appropriately? Again, I'm unsure.

Scott

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l