On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you honesty tell me that you have not come across articles that are
> 'untouchable'? That you know they convey a view that is not entirely right,
> but YOU and I cannot change it? Can you tell me that you have not come
> across editors who are hell-bent on preserving this or that article just as
> it is?
I too am a journalist with my work published on two different continents in
print.   I am also a social media metrics lover.  As a journalist, I value
verifiable, fact based, neutral reporting.

If you are making the claim that English and Portuguese Wikipedia are
doomed, I would love to see some verifiable, fact based, neutral oriented
data sets to support the claim, especially as this would imply systematic
bias on a large scale.  You have pulled one article and non-neutrally
labeled it as a representative article for all projects.  Yes, I know of a
number of articles and topics that are pretty much untouchable but this is
far from 99% of all articles on the project.  (I would put the number at
probably 0.1% and that feels generous.)  This feels like a sensationalist
claim (which I would normally say is trumped up by the media in order to
spin a story, but this is not a media story) based on one or two articles.

Bad research.  Bad reporting. There are ways to get attention to this VERY,
VERY important topic without resorting to sensationalist calls that have
little thoughtful documentation.

twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to