On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,<wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: >>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the >>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart >>> than >>> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once the controversy is >>> over, in other words once 25,000 people have gotten sick from salmonella >>> eggs... not just a thousand. No wait, actually after all the lawsuits are >>> over >>> and the people involved are all dead as well. >> >> We should not be using our own judgment in these matters. If the >> London Times or BBC report problems with Lipitor, or anything else, >> that's a good enough source for us, and we should not be allowing >> editors to stop it from being added to our articles. >> > > Yet both these sources can be sensational. The science reporting is > abysmal at times. When they have a science scare I have to turn the BBC > radio4 news off because of the crap reporting. If any one is in the UK > they'll know exactly what I'm taling about.
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me. The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the debate even if we personally dislike some of it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
