[Wikipedia-l] Re: MT and pro-Catholic bias

Tue Oct 21 19:13:56 UTC 2003

erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller) writes:

> Cutting down fluff and POV language which is inevitable when using direct
> quotes -- sure. Removing facts -- no way.

Really?  If I had verifiable facts (from a published Diary, say) that Tony
Benn had toast and marmalade for breakfast on the 3rd of March, 1967, and
added it to the article, that would be OK and -- how wiki is this --
*irremovable*.

What rubbish.

> There is no size limit on Wikipedia. 
> To remove useful information ...

At the third reiteration, the information ceases to be useful, or interesting.
How many times do you wish to cite sources stating that the Missionaries Of
Charity took in a lot of money and were pretty shifty about where it went?

This point is made about 5 times in the article, each time with a lengthy
direct quotation from a different secondary source.

The section "Improper and undisclosed use of funds" could be precis'd into
about 6 sentences and no useful information would be lost.  Similarly, both
lengthy quotations in "Secret Baptisms" could be summarised in about 40
words, including attributions.  

As a bonus, neither section would then read like it was written by an 3rd
grader with attention-deficit disorder.
-- 
Gareth Owen
"Your tomato wife asparagus is cabbage dead."