> 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 > write with 100% precision, and they certainly don't use Wikipedia > terminology. > It may be literally true that we don't claim to understand anything, but > that > doesn't make the complaint invalid. It just means that you need to apply > a > bit more intelligence to understanding the complaint beyond literally > parsing > the words. (And there's *far* too much literalness among Wikipedia > policy > wonks). > > I would guess that a complaint that we don't understand something is a > claim > of undue weight and unreliable sources. Almost any claim about the Tea > Party > has been made by someone; whether it has been made by someone who we > ought to > pay attention to is another story.
I note Fox News is excluded from this list: External links * Collected news and coverage at The New York Times * Collected news and coverage at The Guardian * Collected news and coverage at CNN * Tea Party Movement at History News Network at George Mason University * Tea Party Movement at SourceWatch I can make a good faith argument that it is not a reliable source, as I could for any other news source with obvious bias, but I don't think there would be consensus on that point. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l