2009/9/9 David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com>: > 2009/9/9 Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net>: > >> Actually, no, that is a throw-away. But we do need to get a little >> smarter. We might have something come up that is a bit more serious. > > > 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.
BLP says no such thing. > 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. False. Wikipedia contains a lot of stuff that isn't "all over the media". WP:V doesn't require anything close to that and for good reason. > People shouting "censorship!" have mistaken the encyclopedia for a > venue for investigative journalism. No. The investigative stuff had already been done. Thats why there were three sources on the info (probably more around since no one had got as far as digging up the afghan sources). -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
