[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Sun May 8 20:51:23 UTC 2005

--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/7/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Sarah

Sarah, I'm still at a loss to understand your
argument, and I'm  not saying that to be difficult, I
honestly don't understand your objections.  In this
particular case, we are discussing a Usenet newsgroup.
 This newsgroup "awarded" this guy with their "Kook of
the Millenium" award.  Would this newsgroup not be the
best source for information on to whom they they gave
the award?

RickK

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250