[WikiEN-l] Improve quality by reviewing all new articles

Fri Dec 16 20:39:55 UTC 2005

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that the assertion
that someone was involved in both the JFK and the RFK
assassination is not some sort of lunatic fringe claim
that at least deserves some sort of cursory
verification, then I don't think the suggestion that
you should not be editing an encyclopedia is all that
outrageous.  

The articles that get a lot of Wiki attention are
great, but on the fringes we take too much on faith
and too much slips through the cracks.  Collectively,
we need to develop more of a critical eye and letting
these sorts of things can be slipped through without
acting upon them is, as we have already seen, going to
cause lasting harm to the usefulness, reliability, and
public image of this project. 

In the end, it does not matter if this error was
"obvious" or not, though it clearly was.  However you
define obvious, it is a definition that needs to
include this sort of claim, otherwise new pages patrol
will be an exercise in uselessness and futility. 

Delirium delirium at hackish.org:

This was not (except in retrospect) obvious to me
either, because I am 
not an expert in the Kennedy assassination.  I have a
vague 
recollection 
that it took a long time to come up with the official
determination of 
what happened, so for all I know there may have been
hundreds of 
suspects in the earlier stages of the investigation,
and I do not know 
offhand all their names, or whether Mr. Seigenthaler
was one of them.

Quite frankly, if you have nothing better to do than
insult Wikipedians 
and tell us we are not fit to participate in your
project, I should 
think we need new leadership.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 