[WikiEN-l] Signpost and basic journalistic integrity

[Tony Souter]

Nathan, we almost always use an image as standard practice. What is misleading about those images? And what is offensive about them? Why don't you campaign to deleted from Commons if you're so offended? As the caption says, they are illustrative of troublesome themes on the site.

I've yet to see anyone point to the "inflammatory", "aggressive" text in the piece. It's dismaying when people fling about generalised allegations but then fail to back them up when asked. Where is the article not factual?

"Foray into opinion" ... I've pointed to four sentences that are less objective; did you read them here? Are they worthy of shafting me with phrases such as "ethical lapse", "basic journalistic integrity", "manipulated and pulled out of context", "false light"?

My advice is to avoid giving succour to those who indulge in abuse ("a jerk", "a dick", and worse). I don't crumple when bullied, and here I believe is a set of issues that are of significant public interest. I stand by it and I'd write it again.

I don't want to spend more time on this mailing list.

Tony 










On 06/11/2013, at 12:16 AM, Nathan wrote:

> Hi Tony,
> 
> I should have informed you of the post, and I apologize for not doing so.
> But on the rest, I disagree. I think my post was more even-handed than your
> News and notes bit. I didn't speak to you first or afford you the
> opportunity to respond, but I didn't quote you misleadingly. You haven't
> complained that I manipulated your quotes, or illustrated my post about you
> in such a way that readers would draw a false impression. It was hardly a
> smear - I said publishing the comment was a disappointing ethical lapse.
> The rest of it was, as you say, just the facts.
> 
> Frankly, it's not bullying to criticize the standard of journalism evident
> in your article. As a writer for a publication, you should be willing to
> accept such criticism as a valuable part of the process. It's worth noting
> the absence of your defenders on this piece. Even those who agree with you
> that such content on Wikivoyage is unsavory (as I do) aren't arguing that
> the piece was written to high standards.
> 
> When you frame "just the facts" with polemic, fail to disclose a relevant
> history, use misleading illustrations and include quotes such that their
> sources complain of manipulation, you've done something wrong. It's
> off-putting, below what we'd like to see from the Signpost, and it
> certainly doesn't help Wikivoyage if your call to action simultaneously
> alienates people on both sides of the debate.
> _______________________________________________
> 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