[WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

[Thomas Dalton]

I disagree. Determining that someone had been hypocritical and therefore
their actions are more notable than they would otherwise have been is the
kind of judgement call we should be leaving to the secondary sources.
On Oct 7, 2012 3:29 PM, "Marc Riddell" <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

>
> >> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
> >>
> >> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught
> >> cheating
> >> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter."
> >>
> >> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at
> >> all,
> >> in a gossip tabloid rag?
> >>
> >> Marc Riddell
> >
> on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
>
> > Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was
> > Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York
> > Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be
> > encyclopedic.
> >
> > If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/,
> no.
> >
> > Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual
> > situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag."
> >
> It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my
> intention to suggest that we are above that.
>
> The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What
> should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly
> hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But
> only
> to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity".
>
> Marc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>