On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:36, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to stop there, with a general observation - I think they're
right on one big picture thing: Wikipedia has an editorial bias - our
default neutrality is that of a moderately internationalist,
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about
conservative positions and people than about liberal positions and
people, which would be worth
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about
conservative positions
On 14/10/2010 20:36, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious
I think there have been some discussions at WP:RSN about whether it is
a sufficiently reliable source for negative BLP. My own opinion would
be that it is not, and neither is the Guardian.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
note Fox News is excluded from
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but
