[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Sat May 7 22:19:41 UTC 2005

At least newspaper editors can be tracked and held accountable for
what they wrote. As for the trustworthiness. They're at least as
trustworthy as the attached newspaper (as far as they are), not being
published in the original sense has nothing to do with it. That last
line was my point with regard to being used a source.

--Mgm

On 5/7/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
> 
> > Websites of established newspapers may not be published in the
> > original sense, but they're still run by the attached news agency and
> > therefore trustworthy sources.
> 
> /me snorts coffee though his nose.
> 
> News agencies are trustworthy sources?  Are you on drugs, or someone's
> payroll?
> 
> May I suggest you start with [[Journalism scandals]], and let us know
> when you've caught up to the present?
> 
> --
>  Sean Barrett     | We're going to take things away from
>  sean at epoptic.com | you on behalf of the common good.
>                   | --Hillary Clinton, 28 June 2004,
>                   | at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>