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

[WereSpielChequers]

I think we also need to take into account what the subject is and type
of information.

I wouldn't trust one of our fleet street tabloids for a "WWII bomber
found on the moon" story, and I was somewhat cynical about the
following week's "WWII bomber mysteriously disappears from the Moon"
headline,  or anything published on April 1st. But my understanding is
that they are somewhat more scrupulous on sports and obits coverage,
so xxxx has signed for yyy FC or zzzz died is probably usable. As for
the gossip and trivia, do we really want that anyway?

WereSpielChequers.

On 4 February 2011 13:25, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 4/2/11, wiki <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> From: wiki <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com>
>> 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.
>
>
> As the freshly-banned user pointed out on Jimbo's talk page, Bob Larson is
> famous for doing "exorcisms on air":
>
> http://www.boblarson.org/
>
> Have a look, it's good fun. I am not sure if that is in any way, shape or
> form an encyclopedic source though.
>
> Here is another example. The article on "New Village Leadership Academy"
> sources the following statement to this website:
>
> http://www.radaronline.com/
>
> Again, have a look at the site. An encyclopedic source?
>
> This is the statement concerned that we have in our article:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Cales stated: "Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, an admitted Scientologist,
> have opened this private school as a front for teaching the L. Ron Hubbard
> principles of 'Study Technology, his creation, and the school employs
> Scientologists. Our goal is to ultimately have the tax exemption status of
> the Scientology cult end, and the criminal deeds of Church leader David
> Miscaviage [sic] be exposed and prosecuted."[24]
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Now, Jada Pinkett-Smith is on record as stating that she is not a
> Scientologist. Here is a quote:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Another subject she wants to set straight: persistent rumors that she and
> her husband are Scientologists, like their good friend Tom Cruise. She
> emphatically denies it, and she admits she thought it was a weird religion -
> - until she met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because
> I think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really clear
> about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I realize it is a
> religion just like other religions. Tom is happy. And he is one of the
> greatest men I know."
>
> http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20090628/ENTERTAINMENT01/91026005/Jada-sets-the-record-straight
>
> ---o0o---
>
> Needless to say, Pinkett-Smith was listed for ages in our List of
> Scientologists, along with Chaka Khan, Gloria Gaynor and other
> non-Scientologists.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>