SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: − +
sourcing
I think Greg is right here - ultimately some sources are more reliable than others - we can't ignore that. Politifact is a reputable fact-checking organization; they seems to have pretty thoroughly debunked the chain email. Will we next have an article about a Nigerian prince needing $500?--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:19, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
I think Greg is right here - ultimately some sources are more reliable than others - we can't ignore that. Politifact is a reputable fact-checking organization; they seems to have pretty thoroughly debunked the chain email. Will we next have an article about a Nigerian prince needing $500?--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:19, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
:Is he right? Are you right? More news similar to this is coming out. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/12/obamacare-rates-trigger-more-sticker-shock/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:24, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
:Is he right? Are you right? More news similar to this is coming out. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/12/obamacare-rates-trigger-more-sticker-shock/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:24, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
::I'm not saying we can't report the news - there's a lot of bad press out there about how incredibly screwed up these exchanges are - but an email chain isn't a reliable source - politifact and snopes are. The Fox source is certainly reliable.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:48, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
An encyclopedia has an overriding responsibility to avoid spreading dangerous falsehoods. Proceeding by slapping daft rumours and nonsensical claims into this and other articles will do nothing to improve the already abysmal reputation of Conservapedia. As I've occasionally suggested in the past, recruiting from a broader pool of potential editors and implementing procedures similar to those evolved by Wikipedia would improve quality of content. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 12:47, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
An encyclopedia has an overriding responsibility to avoid spreading dangerous falsehoods. Proceeding by slapping daft rumours and nonsensical claims into this and other articles will do nothing to improve the already abysmal reputation of Conservapedia. As I've occasionally suggested in the past, recruiting from a broader pool of potential editors and implementing procedures similar to those evolved by Wikipedia would improve quality of content. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 12:47, 13 October 2013 (EDT)