Talk:Russian opposition presents alleged evidence of election fraud
Add topicLatest comment: 16 years ago by SVTCobra
I see a woman feeding papers into a machine but aside from that I don't know what to make of that video. Also, we need to get all those in-line links out of the article and get some other sources.--SVTCobra 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have found no references to what Smena is, besides the website itself. Most hits are for a camera. --SVTCobra 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are a few: [1], [2], and in Russian [3], [4]. It's legit, as far as I can tell. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so maybe Smena exists. I still object to this being published in its current form. --SVTCobra 04:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the allegation is strong and the evidence is weak. However, I think that the news is valid, and the best we can do if we keep it up on the site is cover it with attribution to this Smena group. Worst case they are proven to be wrong; best case, we helped break the news. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- By that logic we should publish every allegation made by any group that produces a YouTube video. --SVTCobra 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's a subjective call, but I would rather err on the side of cautious inclusion than exclusion. You can't be a citizen journalism site without taking some risks: if people can't use an alternative venue like WN to report their happenings then what could they use? I am not saying that we need to rush out and support them, but unless there's something clearly wrong here, and as long as we make it clear that this is an allegation and the only source is the organization itself, then I think we're OK. If we wanted to be better, we could go out and get an expert on Russian elections to comment on this. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- To publish this and not the more substantiated claims of fraud by more legitimate opposition groups does seem "exclusionary". --SVTCobra 06:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it's a subjective call, but I would rather err on the side of cautious inclusion than exclusion. You can't be a citizen journalism site without taking some risks: if people can't use an alternative venue like WN to report their happenings then what could they use? I am not saying that we need to rush out and support them, but unless there's something clearly wrong here, and as long as we make it clear that this is an allegation and the only source is the organization itself, then I think we're OK. If we wanted to be better, we could go out and get an expert on Russian elections to comment on this. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- By that logic we should publish every allegation made by any group that produces a YouTube video. --SVTCobra 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I still say this should not be published and is a violation NPOV.--SVTCobra 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)