[WikiEN-l] Abuse of your services

Sun May 8 23:51:52 UTC 2005

On 5/9/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/8/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Peter, for the record, you were trying to insert that Australia is a
> republic, and wouldn't accept the hundreds of sources available that
> contradict that.

Smoke and mirrors, dear. Please don't try to wriggle away. You can
hardly claim to promote integrity and journalistic standards if you
don't practice what you preach.

On an issue entirely separate to whether Australia is a republic or
not, I asked Adam Carr to provide checkable sources for his
statements.

He flatly refused, with vile abuse.

You defended him and went running off in search of support in case I
made good on my proposal to remove anything that wasn't properly
sourced. Your statements, Adam's and mine are all a matter of record,
and I don't think it will be too difficult to pull them out. Do you
remember the incident now?

-- 
Peter in Canberra