[WikiEN-l] Otto Middleton (a morality tale)

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> From: Delirium <delirium at hackish.org>
> Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what
> verifying 
> information with a reliable source means, rather than a
> problem with the 
> principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a
> good newspaper 
> in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions"
> section, with no 
> apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not*
> constitute reliable 
> verification of that point.


I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what
verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist
that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability,
not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them.

 
> I guess I see that kind of critical source analysis as
> completely in 
> line with the idea of "verifiable information cited to
> reliable 
> sources", though. At least as I read it, the WP:V/WP:RS
> combination 
> asks: is this given citation sufficient to verify the fact
> it claims to 
> verify? So I wholeheartedly agree that bright-line rules
> like 
> "everything in The Guardian is reliable" are wrong, but I
> don't think 
> that ought to require abandoning the WP:V/WP:RS view, at
> least as I've 
> understood it. Isn't there even some text on WP:RS (there
> used to be, 
> anyway) about how reliable sources may be context-specific,
> e.g. a 
> newspaper may be a reliable source for some claims but not
> for others?


Yes, those sections are still there: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWSORG

I don't see editors quoting them much.

A.