On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality > source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the > typical run of the media. > > (Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.) > > Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help. >
In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and it was still removed. How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the funder and beneficiary of much of the research. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
