Wikipedia and the media

  • Thread starter drankin
  • Start date
  • #1
drankin

Main Question or Discussion Point

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:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Mk
1,984
3
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.
 
  • #3
655
3
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 [Broken]. The event is over, it seems clear it was a one time thing, so this is why he was not banned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,114
2,480
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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Mk
1,984
3
Actually not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_policy [Broken]. 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Wikipedia and the media

  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
25K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
59
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top