>>>> 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 > on 10/7/12 11:29 AM, Fred Bauder at [email protected] wrote:
> But you see, that is what is missing. His exposés are of pedophiles while > the "scandal" is consenting adults. Where's the hypocrisy? > > Fred If he were notable for being openly and loudly championing and insisting upon monogamy in a marriage relationship then, if credibly sourced, it could be reported in an article about him. But, the emphasis would be on his hypocrisy, not his infidelity. Marc _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
