[WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

[Fred Bauder]

>
>>> 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

But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while
the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy?

Fred