David Gerard wrote: > > I think there's actually not much we need to do. The most recent case > was entirely covered by BLP: be extremely conservative about > potentially extremely harmful information. > > We're an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - we have wikinews > for that. If we wait a few days until we're absolutely sure and there > are really good and reliable sources, that's fine. Once it's all over > the media, it's not our problem; when it isn't, it shouldn't be in the > article. > > People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a > venue for investigative journalism. > > >
I do agree that it is a bit more than a bit silly to expect wikipedia to not only surprise occasionally with scooping other more established news organizations, but in fact be there before all the other major news orgs with the full nitty gritty. However the source of why critics of these two stories about suppression have focused on wikipedia, likely stems from the fact our articles edit histories are out there for most people to see, if they have a bit of savvy. The story would almost certainly be different if most major newsorganisations out there had a public paper-trail of what decisions about which stories were made in the newsrooms at which time, and who was on which side about which story... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
