[WikiEN-l] Encyclopedia or Gossip Rag

[Marc Riddell]

>>>> 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
> 
on 10/7/12 11:29 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:

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

If he were notable for being openly and loudly championing and insisting
upon monogamy in a marriage relationship then, if credibly sourced, it could
be reported in an article about him. But, the emphasis would be on his
hypocrisy, not his infidelity.

Marc