[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Sun May 8 17:05:25 UTC 2005

On 5/8/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He
flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting
any material for which no source was given.

Seems the rules change if it's a mate.

> 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.

If it's a Usenet story, Usenet is a good source. You want to see who
received Net-Kook of the Year award, there's no other source.
Britannica is silent on the matter.

Just common sense, really.

-- 
Peter in Canberra