ahh, my bad
I didn't read the article.
Personally I'm glad that Wikipedia exists, regardless of it's inconsistent approach to sources, it does more right in educating people than it does wrong in offending on political grounds.
Another way of thinking about the banning of the Mail but not the others: the journey of a thousand miles...
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:54, Reply)
But the entire point of wikipedia
is that it relies on third party links. If there was a page entitled 'The Ann Coulter Fan Club' and I posted on it to correct something, they'd edit me out because I hadn't linked to a third party. The fact that 53 people can ban a news source because they just don't like the mail's weltgestalt is wrong. And it really should have occurred to the ring leader that online actions have real world consequences. On the upside for him, if they;ve got anything wrong he can both complain to IPSO and sue for libel where the burden of proof will be on the Mail.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:57,
Reply)
{{Citation needed}} seems like a decent rule
If I were helping maintain an encyclopedia though, I'd think the quality of those links would count for more than their existence.
(Mails viewpoints aside, their hyperbolic style often encroaches beyond the refreshingly unconcerned with the vulgar exigencies of veracity)
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 16:44, Reply)