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

[geni]

On 13 May 2011 19:08, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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.
>

Not consistent with actual use

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.dailymail.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.thesun.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.newsoftheworld.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.dailystar.co.uk

-- 
geni