Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Attribution"
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ::I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | :::Maybe I'm in violation of WP:POINT, but the POINT is, the Eminem cite is about the '''only''' properly qualified cite from that article, and infact the ''ABC News'' article has deeply problematic vulnerabilities, nonetheleast of which is a question of [[journalistic ethics]] of ''both'' the authors and the editors of ''ABC News''. Yet that cite, and a few others, are already scattered throughout CP. I'm not saying it can't be used, I am saying the ''ABC News'' article was used improperly, and the cite I made to it was factual | + | :::Maybe I'm in violation of WP:POINT, but the POINT is, the Eminem cite is about the '''only''' properly qualified cite from that article, and infact the ''ABC News'' article has deeply problematic vulnerabilities, nonetheleast of which is a question of [[journalistic ethics]] of ''both'' the authors and the editors of ''ABC News''. Yet that cite, and a few others, are already scattered throughout CP. I'm not saying it can't be used, I am saying the ''ABC News'' article was used improperly, and the cite I made to it was factual and improvement over what had been represented out of that cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 17:06, April 24, 2007
Some discussion of anonymous sources would be beneficial to the project. Several abominable abuses were discovered in reviewing the various Torture related articles. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (#19) cites how pervasive gossip is in WP and how Conservapedia seeks to avoid it. We would do good to discuss and formulate our own guideline how they are to be properly attributed.
In historical writing I employ extremely stringent standards, however in current news items some leeway may occassionally be warranted. This however, is where hidden biases creep in, and only an experienced and trained eye might be able to catch it. We have now some good examples to use and discuss how to properly vet and attribute controversial claims -- both to improve those articles, and articulate an overall guideline that would improve the encyclopedia, show a distinct difference between Conservapedia and WP's bias, alleviate needless disputes among editors, and identify trolls and vandals more quickly.
Let's get some serious students of media bias involved in this discussion. It would be a very useful learning experience how to detect media bias, as well as proper research methods in writing articles, and organizational aspects of improving our project. RobS 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I think if you look at Rob's protection or torture you'll see what he means
The facts don't agree with his POV interpretation.Flippin 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Examples of Bias in Wikipedia #19 states,
- Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.... Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
- Cite 1 (one) singular "fact" from any material removed from any Torture related article. RobS 12:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. Flippin 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
- Maybe I'm in violation of WP:POINT, but the POINT is, the Eminem cite is about the only properly qualified cite from that article, and infact the ABC News article has deeply problematic vulnerabilities, nonetheleast of which is a question of journalistic ethics of both the authors and the editors of ABC News. Yet that cite, and a few others, are already scattered throughout CP. I'm not saying it can't be used, I am saying the ABC News article was used improperly, and the cite I made to it was factual and improvement over what had been represented out of that cite. RobS 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)