On 13 May 2011 19:08, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Fri, 13/5/11, Delirium <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Delirium <[email protected]> >> Isn't this just a failure to actually think through what >> verifying >> information with a reliable source means, rather than a >> problem with the >> principle? It's quite possible for the Guardian to be a >> good newspaper >> in general, but for a random list in the "Diversions" >> section, with no >> apparent investigative reporting involved, to *not* >> constitute reliable >> verification of that point. > > > I actually think it's malice, rather than a failure to think through what > verification means. And it's malice in most cases where editors insist > that some tabloid claim should stay in a biography, based on "verifiability, > not truth." They don't like the subject, and enjoy taking pot shots at them. >
Not consistent with actual use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.dailymail.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.thesun.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.newsoftheworld.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.dailystar.co.uk -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
