slimvirgin(a)gmail.com stated for the record:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their
websites) have a
fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's
checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again
by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking
for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues.
Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a
fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the
managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and
even the owners.
That's a nice theory. Too bad it has little or nothing to do with the
real world. Once again, I point out [[journalism scandals]].
We don't have the resources to do any of this,
which is why we rely on
sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, it is not
Wikipedia policy.
--
Sean Barrett | It is lovely to watch the coloured
sean(a)epoptic.com | shadows on the planets of eternal light.