On 9/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400, Rob
<gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on
websites whose domains
he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
not be identified as a prostitute.
Seemingly absurd, but actually fixable as long as reliable secondary
sources call him that.
I'd suspect the problem is that the original primary source no longer exists?
* The Columbia
Journalism Review is a reliable source. A blog run by
the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
Journalism Review is not.
Seems fair.
Hmm? Some blogs are trustworthy, some are not, despite what some
people want WP:RS to read (generally, they want an 'All blogs are
untrustworthy' stance, despite the evidence). I'd say an official
blog of an organisation is trustworthy. Blogs where we can be sure of
the author and that their opinions are notable are also reliable, at
least for that individual's thoughts and opinions.
* The New
Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".
Reliable in respect of one party's view of something and if balanced
from the other perspective, I'd say.
Many (most?) sources are partisan one way or another; it's our job to
strive for NPOV, regardless. (And NPOV does not mean 'balanced' in a
journalism sense; we don't have to give equal airtime to unequal
opinions).
-Matt