Has Wikipedia's Blocking Policy Become Too Lenient?

[drankin]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519283,00.html"

This is a good example of how the media has become lazy in their research for news. It also might show why those in the media that are responsible for obituaries have that position :rofl:.

 

[Mk]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
I thought it was funny how in this article it stated that

The quote had no referenced sources and was therefore taken down by moderators of Wikipedia within minutes. However, Fitzgerald put it back a few more times until it was finally left up on the site for more than 24 hours.

Fitzgerald's account, according to policy, should have been temporarily banned on account of violating WP:3RR.

 

[maze]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html
I thought it was funny how in this article it stated that

Fitzgerald's account, according to policy, should have been temporarily banned on account of violating WP:3RR.

Actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_policy . The event is over, it seems clear it was a one time thing, so this is why he was not banned.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519283,00.html"

This is a good example of how the media has become lazy in their research for news. It also might show why those in the media that are responsible for obituaries have that position :rofl:.

I could not agree more. Back in the Bush era (does anyone remember 108 days ago?), there was a mention of pork-barrel spending in my state. I was abit aghast, as it was promoted by both of our senators. All of the media seemed to feed off of one original source. I happened to look into it and found that it wasn't pork-barrel spending at all. It was a company that had been erroneously taxed because it's product was similar to another product. The tax almost put the company out of business! But that didn't stop the pop-media from calling it what it wasn't, a $2,000,000 a year, pork-barrel tax break.

I almost puked at their lack of research. It took me only 10 minutes to figure out the rest of the story.

It's interesting to now google "pork barrel for toy arrow manufacturer" and see that none of the big media venues are listed on the top 50. Perhaps someone pointed out that they were wrong and they should just delete that https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=312385".

 

[Mk]

Actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_policy . The event is over, it seems clear it was a one time thing, so this is why he was not banned.

Edit warring itself is a disruption to Wikipedia. I didn't say he should have been banned for punishment, and when I say ban I mean 24 hours from editing.