> >>> I came across this today in the English Wikipedia: >>> >>> "In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught >>> cheating >>> on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter." >>> >>> Is this worthy of a credible Encyclopedia or, if it needs reported at >>> all, >>> in a gossip tabloid rag? >>> >>> Marc Riddell >> > on 10/7/12 9:55 AM, Fred Bauder at [email protected] wrote: > >> Depends on reliability of the source and notability. If the subject was >> Barack Obama and the sources were The Washington Post, The New York >> Times, AND The Wall Street Journal, the mere report would be >> encyclopedic. >> >> If the subject was Joe the Plumber and the source was perezhilton.com/, >> no. >> >> Answering your specific question requires reference to the factual >> situation, but, no, we are not a "gossip rag." >> > It was not my intention to suggest that we were a "gossip rag". It was my > intention to suggest that we are above that. > > The reliability of the source should, in this case, be irrelevant. What > should be relevant is if the subject of the report has been publicly > hypocritical concerning the issue then, yes, is should be reported. But > only > to stress the hypocrisy, not the "infidelity". > > Marc
But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy? Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
