> 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
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
