Re: News agencies are not RSs

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, geni <geniice@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> 2009/6/29 Gwern Branwen <gwern0@...>:
>>    
>>> “We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place
>>> we would regard as a reliable source,” he said. “I would have had a
>>> really hard time with it if it had.”"
>>> ...
>>>      
>> The question is though is is
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajhwok_Afghan_News genuinely not a
>> reliable source?
>>    
>
>
> What was that underlying principle which was codified after the Brian
> Peppers deletion debates? Ah yes, 'basic human dignity', now to be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_dignity.
>
> This case is more about basic common sense. If someone's life may be
> endangered by what is on their wikipedia biography but is not widely
> reported elsewhere, I would expect that anyone sensible would find some way
> of applying policy so as to keep the life-endangering stuff off it. And that
> would take precedence over secondary arguments over whether obscure news
> agencies were reliable.
>
>