--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: David Moran <[email protected]>
> Taking the nonexistence of an article
> on a particular subject as positive
> evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is
> an unsupportable
> argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles
> published in the NYT and
> Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a
> reputable secondary
> source is a reputable secondary source.
>
> FMF
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I
was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times
has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic
in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we
should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality
sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that
*does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
